Well THAT will end well...(Armed March On Washington)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Ugh. Reading the comments on that news page made my head hurt. Exactly how many paranoid nut jobs live in my country?

http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1985/12/15

Funny little reminder of just how long the gun control debate has occurred... and this was well before most of the deadliest school shootings in US history.

erttheking:
Ugh. Reading the comments on that news page made my head hurt. Exactly how many paranoid nut jobs live in my country?

It's a constantly reoccurring phenomena, and they get crazier every cycle.

Frission:
Let's say that somehow there are enough people with the necessary skills and determination to fight and that they were coordinated enough to act together.
The rebels would have even greater logistical problems, because you're assuming that this would be at a point in time when a rebel group would have managed to organize themselves. The rebel group would have to organize fast enough to avoid attracting attention until too late and they would have to be there at most military installation. The military would seriously have to be off the ball if they were to allow that to happen. Rebels are also going to be as badly affected by any destruction in the infrastructure as well.

The rebel group would not have as many logistical problems in the beginning because they are working with what they have. As they organize themselves they can change equipment and make the logistics better. The rebels would not have logistical problems in the beginning and would not have them in the end IF they organize along the way. The US military requires a huge amount of supplies to keep it going. The military COULD draw back and not use its massive potential and instead go small scale. However, by doing that the argument that the US military's shear power would win the day becomes moot.

You're also assuming that a whole state would go, like in the old civil war. It's much more likely that you'll just have some individual discontents rising up.

Whole states did not just go in 1861. My part of Texas nearly succeeded from the rest of Texas (kind of like West Virginia, which is another example). However, you find that areas tend to fall out of your control when you do not defend them. The US military is not large enough to defend every single point. Even if you did a complete 180 on the tooth to tail ratio it still would not be enough. Hell, if you decreased the tail to 1% of the total forces it still would not be enough.

Successful rebels tend to control areas by the absence of other forces rather than through their own strength. The Vietnamese won Dien Bien Phu despite a far superior French military that could effectively take ANY territory it wanted.

That is one problem with the allusion to Vietnam. Civil wars are completely different from guerrilla wars and I don't know why there's the same constant comparisons. Civil wars are far, far worse. More blood is shed and there's nowhere for the government to pull out. Think less Vietnam and more Spain or Syria.

Problem, the 1861 war is misnamed. It was not a Civil War it was a rebellion. It would most likely be the same for the future rebels.

The problem with comparing a future rebellion with Syria is that it is an actual civil war in Syria. That is, the rebels are attempting to take over the government, not separate from the government. Rebellions tend to go far easier than civil wars because the people in the non-affected areas tend to throw their pride away and just give up. How many mothers from New York do you think will be willing to throw their sons into combat in order to hold onto Texas? I would guess not many and that guess tends to hold true.

There is no long term planning. What happens when the war ends and you're left with a broken down infrastructure, several people in puddles of blood and a lot of different factions vying for control? What could have been done, that couldn't have been done with a normal election?

Quite a bit actually. You can start a new government from scratch.

The end point is that just trying to have this revolution instead of perhaps having an election is childish. Just petition your local representative.

Doesn't do much good when your reps do not listen or are outvoted.

Have you read through some of the posts on libertarian topics? Some people tell us that we need to shut up and not try and change anything because we are outvoted. Fuck the battlefield of ideas. You shut up and get into line. That is rather disturbing to say the least.

The majority can and does commit atrocities against the minority. Why should the minority not have the option to defend themselves when their rights are violated by the majority? The majority should respect the rights of all of the citizens of their nation. If they do not then do not ask us to sit by while we are exterminated. My people had the option of voting. Didn't help us.

the clockmaker:
Yes, all your insurgency needs to do is to seize and hold large swaths of territory.

Nope, we just need to deny access.

And then, after that, all you have to do is win a war of fucking supply attrition against a force that , hint-hint, does not work hand to mouth.

Yes it really does. The US military does have equipment stored BUT most of it is spread out for easy distribution AND it is stored in areas that are not that easy to get to. The US military does not set up its bases in order to defend against a rebellion at home. That is why so many important military installations are in the middle of the mountains or the desert or forests, etc. They are very difficult to get to from the outside but if you are already there it is not a problem.

That is your plan, to supply attrit the US military. Stop talking, sit down, and think about that for a second.

I have. Do you have any idea how much it takes to get a plane into the air? For hour of flight time it takes several hundred to a thousand hours of maintenance. That B52 that picture showed off is a supreme pain in the ass to keep flying and it takes a lot of equipment to keep it going.

And the crack about strategic bombing? That is not a COIN tactic, that is a tactic that you use to wear down the strategic weight of another state actor. The military does not need to bomb you, stop being so arrogant as to think that you are that high up the threat scale, the military does not even need to get involved... If your movement were to kick off, at its peak it may merit a swat team or two with the national guard running perimeter work.

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that the massive power of the US military is irrelevant against a guerrilla unit. Progress.

You do realize that the guy I was posting to used a picture of a B52 bomber right? Talk to him, not me.

Jesus. I am so tired of people shouting 'supplies' 'non-conventional' 'insurgency' 'defection' and other words regarding an insurgent conflict with no understanding of anything relevant to the topic.

Let us see, you have provided no evidence to support your claim. I bring up the basic fact that the US military cannot effectively supply itself from a territory in rebellion (a claim that holds true in every war). You claim that the US military can supply itself despite the fact that the US military uses extremely fragile equipment (m4 carbine anyone) that has to be replaced on a regular basis even when NOT in combat. THEN you claim that a future rebellion whose contours you cannot possibly know could be taken out by a SWAT Team.

You present arguments but no evidence. I have shown both.

farson135:

Nope, we just need to deny access.

To deny access to their own supplies, you need to seize and hold said supplies, if you are just an insurgency, they can just do the same 'hold the highways' method that they actually do.

Yes it really does. The US military does have equipment stored BUT most of it is spread out for easy distribution AND it is stored in areas that are not that easy to get to. The US military does not set up its bases in order to defend against a rebellion at home. That is why so many important military installations are in the middle of the mountains or the desert or forests, etc. They are very difficult to get to from the outside but if you are already there it is not a problem.

which presupposes that you can organise an effective fighting force with (due to your insane notion of seizing and holding territory) parity to the US military without anyone at all cottoning on. And that you can overwhelm all of these fast enough to outrun your own attrition. (hint, there is a reason that the taliban does not try to seize Bagram airport.)

I have. Do you have any idea how much it takes to get a plane into the air? For hour of flight time it takes several hundred to a thousand hours of maintenance. That B52 that picture showed off is a supreme pain in the ass to keep flying and it takes a lot of equipment to keep it going.

Good thing that it is not a COIN platform then isn't it?

So let me get this straight, you are arguing that the massive power of the US military is irrelevant against a guerrilla unit. Progress.

No mate, A B-52 bomber, strategic bombing is irrelevant. You cannot strategically bomb an insurgency in the same way that you cannot burn wet tissue paper. That does not mean that wet tissue paper, or your insurgency are invincible, only that

You do realize that the guy I was posting to used a picture of a B52 bomber right? Talk to him, not me.

I'm pretty sure, as is everyone else here, that that was meant as more a demonstration of disparity than an actual doctrinal demonstration.

Let us see, you have provided no evidence to support your claim.

I bring up the basic fact that the US military cannot effectively supply itself from a territory in rebellion (a claim that holds true in every war).[/quote] you claim this, you do not back it up

You claim that the US military can supply itself despite the fact that the US military uses extremely fragile equipment (m4 carbine anyone)

1-Extremely fragile is a relitive term
2-You are constantly presupposing that your insurgency cannot be attrited at a faster rated.

that has to be replaced on a regular basis even when NOT in combat.

Because it is being used in training, under harder conditions then your own precious rifle ever sees

THEN you claim that a future rebellion whose contours you cannot possibly know could be taken out by a SWAT Team.

I explained in depth exactly why your insurgency would not have anywhere near the numbers you claim. Go back and read it, you might actually learn something

You present arguments but no evidence. I have shown both.

I'm sorry mate, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on your half-baked plans being anything even resembling evidence. have you ever actually encountered evidence before? Do you think it means something different than the rest of us?

the clockmaker:
To deny access to their own supplies, you need to seize and hold said supplies, if you are just an insurgency, they can just do the same 'hold the highways' method that they actually do.

Even if they do try and just hold the highways do you have any idea how massive an undertaking that is? There are a shit ton of highways in the US and even if you just hold the important ones that is still a massive job.

Also, you do not have to hold the supplies. You just have to prevent them from being used. Destroying them, cutting access to them (by blocking the way, ect.), and on. Even if you do take them you can separate the elements, consolidating them, and on. There are many ways to do it.

which presupposes that you can organise an effective fighting force with (due to your insane notion of seizing and holding territory) parity to the US military without anyone at all cottoning on. And that you can overwhelm all of these fast enough to outrun your own attrition.

The US military does not have the capability to consolidate its massive holdings overnight. It is a race against time and the rebels would likely have a head start. Victory is not assured for either side.

(hint, there is a reason that the taliban does not try to seize Bagram airport.)

They do not need to seize it, only destroy it and even then not really. Or, in the case of a rebellion in the US, destroy many airports and force the military to consolidate.

No mate, A B-52 bomber, strategic bombing is irrelevant. You cannot strategically bomb an insurgency in the same way that you cannot burn wet tissue paper. That does not mean that wet tissue paper, or your insurgency are invincible, only that

Which means that the B52 the guy posted was irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure, as is everyone else here, that that was meant as more a demonstration of disparity than an actual doctrinal demonstration.

And where do y'all think the disparity comes from? You never once mentioned the size of the military (because it is smaller than the civilian population anyway), you did not mention training (which would be irrelevant anyway), the ONLY thing mentioned was technology and firepower. THAT is the element y'all emphasize. So if that is not where the disparity comes from then where?

you claim this, you do not back it up

Alright, read through "Wages of Destruction", "Absolute Destruction", Hojo's "History of Modern Germany: The Reformation", "War in the Shadows", "The Shield of Achilles", "Reminiscence of East Africa" and I can provide more if you wish. Every one of those texts provides an example (if not several) of an army failing to supply itself in an area under rebellion.

1-Extremely fragile is a relitive term

A standard m4 carbine has a guaranteed service life of 2,000 rounds. That is about 6 months' worth of shooting on my AR-15 and less than 2 years of standard training for an infantryman. I change my bolt out about every 6k (but I use high quality bolts) and I change out my barrel about every 20k (but I use high quality barrels). In addition, my rifle is put together in order to work for a long time. M4s are designed in such a way that they fail after a certain period of time. Colt does not use the best parts known to man and it shows. My rifle length gas system will bury the army's carbine length gas system.

2-You are constantly presupposing that your insurgency cannot be attrited at a faster rated.

What would the rebels use? What they had. What they have is usually available in their area (may change with the increase in internet shopping but it still holds true currently). Therefore, what they need they can get.

Because it is being used in training, under harder conditions then your own precious rifle ever sees

Not a chance. The standard train regime for INFANTRY does not match up to my practices. There are many reports about how ineffective soldiers in the US Army are at engaging targets at 300 METERS. Dear god, my AR-15 can effectively hit targets at 600. It could go further but the sights cannot reach that far. AND I can effectively engage targets at 300 meters during 3-gun matches. This kind of training should be common place in the military.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/

What's more, I typically train on my own land. It is hot as hell, dusty, windy, and I shoot from noon till night using every kind of ammo known to man (and that includes that Russian shit).

I explained in depth exactly why your insurgency would not have anywhere near the numbers you claim. Go back and read it, you might actually learn something

Quote it but do not expect me to read through 11 pages to find what you are talking about.

Hmmm...if the US population was spontaneously producing large number of armed rebels to die at the US military, the US is in serious trouble.

Not because the US military couldn't deal with them, but because of all the things that need to go wrong for things to get to that point.

Armed groups attacking the military like that happens at the end of the insurgency, all the really important stuff happens before that. People tend to overlook the hard work of the agitators, the provocateurs, the ones getting the government to flail around harming its own citizens to turn them against them, the ones that turn protests into riots and ensure shared blood is on everyone's hands.

Mowing down rebels is all very well and good, but the true battlefield is the hearts and mind of the people.

As mentioned, the ones that actually would support a rebellion are in a tiny minority. There may be umpteen million gun owners in the US, but not all of them are traitors.

farson135:

Even if they do try and just hold the highways do you have any idea how massive an undertaking that is? There are a shit ton of highways in the US and even if you just hold the important ones that is still a massive job.

Again, another display of ignorance. Do you want to to start pitching this at a lower level, honest question, I have been assuming a certain level of knowledge on your part that you consistently fail to display. To hold the highways means to maintain a presence around your elements as they use it. Not, say, put up checkpoints on the Hume.

Also, you do not have to hold the supplies.

before I go on, you put forward at the start that you wanted to control several states, which presupposes holding territory. I feel that we have derailed from that

You just have to prevent them from being used. Destroying them,

Using what? are all of your untrained rebels now magically trained in EOD?

cutting access to them (by blocking the way, ect.),

Thus violating the insurgents first rule. You block the way, you need a strongpoint, or some defensive element. A defensive element can be seen, even if only after first contact. If you can be seen, you will be killed. Your number one rule is to run and hide.

and on. Even if you do take them you can separate the elements, consolidating them, and on.

Using the magical logistics fairy no doubt

There are many ways to do it.

all of which require more time and logistics than you will have access to. And all of which occur after you manage to seize a defensive position using untried, poorly equipped, untrained civilians.

The US military does not have the capability to consolidate its massive holdings overnight.

No, but it has a staggered defence policy, increasing in intensity and force until everything is brought to bear. That is the purpose of ready rapid units, special forces, lead elements etc etc. In addition, the police actually are already geared towards domestic work, and that gives further lead time to any domestic deployment.

It is a race against time and the rebels would likely have a head start. Victory is not assured for either side.

No, it is not a race against time, because, as I have stated before, your rebellion would likely never get beyond the phase of being taken down by a swat team.

They do not need to seize it, only destroy it and even then not really. Or, in the case of a rebellion in the US, destroy many airports and force the military to consolidate.

Yes, they are trying to destroy Bagram airport, because they have no idea of their own limitations and are gearing their own strategy around your backwards way of seeing an insurgency instead of the pragmatic manner that has allowed them to survive thus far. /sarc

Plus, you want to destroy airports? That'll go down super well with the people you are trying to win over.

Which means that the B52 the guy posted was irrelevant.

It was a hyperbolic demonstration everyone other than you realises that.

And where do y'all think the disparity comes from? You never once mentioned the size of the military (because it is smaller than the civilian population anyway), you did not mention training (which would be irrelevant anyway),

Training is irrelevant? And all credibility is instantly lost. To think that even the famous insurgents of the 20th century did not have training is to show that you see this only in your heroic fantasy

the ONLY thing mentioned was technology and firepower. THAT is the element y'all emphasize. So if that is not where the disparity comes from then where?

First off, tech is not what I have been harping on. Logistics, recruiting pools and tactics and the COIN experience of the modern age are.

Secondly, tech is actually very important, but it is not the big flashy things like bombers, it is the little things like good comms, NVGs, proper medical systems, proper rations, IED vehicle proofing and things like that that really tilt the battlespace in a first order militaries favour. But people who don't work with them don't really appriciate them, so they go for the big flashy demonstration.

Alright, read through "Wages of Destruction", "Absolute Destruction", Hojo's "History of Modern Germany: The Reformation", "War in the Shadows", "The Shield of Achilles", "Reminiscence of East Africa" and I can provide more if you wish. Every one of those texts provides an example (if not several) of an army failing to supply itself in an area under rebellion.

Mate, I get up before dawn for work, do PT for an hour after work and then have to cook dinner and unwind before starting again. I am not going to give up what remains of my time to track down and read books to support your arguments. Do what normal people do, source, analyse, compress and then disseminate the information you gained from those sources to support your arguments.

A standard m4 carbine has a guaranteed service life of 2,000 rounds. That is about 6 months' worth of shooting on my AR-15 and less than 2 years of standard training for an infantryman. I change my bolt out about every 6k (but I use high quality bolts) and I change out my barrel about every 20k (but I use high quality barrels). In addition, my rifle is put together in order to work for a long time. M4s are designed in such a way that they fail after a certain period of time. Colt does not use the best parts known to man and it shows. My rifle length gas system will bury the army's carbine length gas system.

Do you know the average engagement range in the last few insurgencies? because simply stating 'I have a better gun' shows not only a disregard for the tactics of the war you are fighting, but also the recruiting pool you are using.

What would the rebels use? What they had. What they have is usually available in their area (may change with the increase in internet shopping but it still holds true currently). Therefore, what they need they can get.

That is circular logic. You are saying they will have what they need because they will need what they have.

They need food, they need water, they need warm clothes, they need ammo, they need tools/parts for equipment manufacture, they need coordination or you are just mazzing and calling it a campaign. Take away some of these things, and it is possible to continue operating (assuming that your people are willing to keep fighting if it means going hungry or cold, which is assuming a fucking lot) but their effectiveness to operate is degraded. We call this process attrition. Now, Your force is acting solely on what you have on you with no coordinated plan on how to gain more, facing a force who has a capability to gain more and has been stockpiling supplies for a long, long time. The force you are facing is, going by every insurgency ever, going to suffer a much lower casualty rate than you and, due to the fact that they are experienced with their supplies will use them to greater effect than you will. do you know how to distribute food for the maximum effectiveness of your force? What this points to is the force you intend to fight has more stuff, that will be attrited at a more effective rate.

Not a chance. The standard train regime for INFANTRY does not match up to my practices. There are many reports about how ineffective soldiers in the US Army are at engaging targets at 300 METERS. Dear god, my AR-15 can effectively hit targets at 600. It could go further but the sights cannot reach that far. AND I can effectively engage targets at 300 meters during 3-gun matches. This kind of training should be common place in the military.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/marksmanship-matters/

What's more, I typically train on my own land. It is hot as hell, dusty, windy, and I shoot from noon till night using every kind of ammo known to man (and that includes that Russian shit).

Okay, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you do do all of that. First off, if you manage to outrange an infantry squad, they just call in organic/tasked support elements and you end up a red smear on the grass. Second, just because you do all of that, does not mean that all of your recruiting pool does.

Quote it but do not expect me to read through 11 pages to find what you are talking about.

It came up twice on the page immediately before this one. I don't think it unreasonable to expect you to read a page that you posted on.

Also, I find it kind of emblematic of your entire approach that in the same post you pout that I expect you to read a discussion that you are taking part in, while demanding that I read several books of your choosing in order to understand your position.

the clockmaker:
Again, another display of ignorance. Do you want to to start pitching this at a lower level, honest question, I have been assuming a certain level of knowledge on your part that you consistently fail to display. To hold the highways means to maintain a presence around your elements as they use it. Not, say, put up checkpoints on the Hume.

You insult me and then you continue to show an unbelievable level of ignorance about the task you are discussing.

THAT IS STILL A HUGE JOB. The US is huge country and moving a massive amount of supplies around is a huge job. Once again, US bases are not put in places that are easy to supply. You cannot drive everywhere in the US in a day. In order to supply those bases it will take several days to several weeks (depending on the distance and the conditions) which either means switching off drivers and guards (more manpower) or it means stopping and resting. In addition, you have to be able to refuel with either means checkpoints along the way or a constantly routating number of fuel trucks following the convoy. And that is not even an end to the problems.

before I go on, you put forward at the start that you wanted to control several states, which presupposes holding territory. I feel that we have derailed from that

Never said holding territory. I have said several times that the US military is nowhere near large enough to hold every point which means that the rebels can hold what the military does not hold.

I was talking about states rebelling. I never said that the rebels would defend that exact territory.

Using what? are all of your untrained rebels now magically trained in EOD?

What are we diffusing bombs now? Destroy the supports on a building and collapse the building on top of the supplies (I have done that before and many construction workers can say the same). Set up a bomb and blow it up. Remove key components and destroy them. Etc.

Thus violating the insurgents first rule. You block the way, you need a strongpoint, or some defensive element. A defensive element can be seen, even if only after first contact. If you can be seen, you will be killed. Your number one rule is to run and hide.

Shall I insult you for being ignorant again? After I tell you how foolish your statement is will you calm the fuck down? I will trade you blow for blow but this shit is tiresome.

Where did I say the rebels would defend a point? Nowhere. I said block access. That could mean collapsing a building on the supplies (which might also destroy them). It might mean destroying roads, bridges, airports, etc. I could even mean setting up a charge and collapsing a building or a mountain on top of a road. Try thinking outside the box.

Using the magical logistics fairy no doubt

No, using manpower and vehicles.

all of which require more time and logistics than you will have access to.

Because you know how quickly the rebels and the military will be able to begin offensive operations in a theoretical war.

And all of which occur after you manage to seize a defensive position using untried, poorly equipped, untrained civilians.

It has been done before and with interesting results.

BTW you do realize that a huge number of civilian gun owners are former military, police, rangers, etc. right?

No, but it has a staggered defence policy, increasing in intensity and force until everything is brought to bear. That is the purpose of ready rapid units, special forces, lead elements etc etc. In addition, the police actually are already geared towards domestic work, and that gives further lead time to any domestic deployment.

Right, so you are going to deploy the special forces to take on an armed rebellion. The guys who could be anywhere on earth at any one time and whose numbers are so small that they could not even take down a major rebellion in the state of Montana on their own. Not to mention a major rebellion covering multiple states. Also, what makes you think that the police would stay loyal to the government? Hell, what makes you think the state government would stay loyal to the US government?

YOU continue to assume that the rebellion would be tiny. It would not be. A real rebellion would rally a huge number of people to its side because if they are going to rebel then obviously there must be a major issue at hand.

No, it is not a race against time, because, as I have stated before, your rebellion would likely never get beyond the phase of being taken down by a swat team.

Because you know exactly how this rebellion starts. The President institutes martial law in DC and begins executing people for treason, seizes firearms, forces papers to close their doors, and on (already been done during the Civil War but to Chicago). Are you trying to argue that only a handful of people would be outraged enough to take up arms? Also, one wonders how SWAT is going to figure these things out. Are they magical?

Plus, you want to destroy airports? That'll go down super well with the people you are trying to win over.

Better than the military who is killing a bunch of innocent people. The US military has proven time and time again that it does not have the ability to perform operations in civilian areas without killing innocent people. Every single body will end up on a video on Youtube. See how quickly the rebellion spreads from there.

It was a hyperbolic demonstration everyone other than you realises that.

No it was not. People like you are ALWAYS emphasizing the military's ability to utilize massive levels of force. Read through the comments on this very topic. I have not been involved in this topic from the beginning and I still have seen those arguments.

Training is irrelevant? And all credibility is instantly lost. To think that even the famous insurgents of the 20th century did not have training is to show that you see this only in your heroic fantasy

Strawman. Would you kindly stop make shit up and read what I am telling you?

Why would training be irrelevant in this case? Because the rebels have training (the US is a militarized society in many ways) the US military does not train its troops very well, and in the short term the US military is not going to be able to act with any level of force which means that the rebels have time to train. What level is arguable.

] First off, tech is not what I have been harping on.

YOU claim that EVERYBODY agrees with you. Look through a few of these posts and tell me that again.

Secondly, tech is actually very important, but it is not the big flashy things like bombers, it is the little things like good comms, NVGs, proper medical systems, proper rations, IED vehicle proofing and things like that that really tilt the battlespace in a first order militaries favour. But people who don't work with them don't really appriciate them, so they go for the big flashy demonstration.

So you are saying that the other posters went for the flashy because that is what they appreciate. That is not what you said before.

BTW all of those little things the rebels have (if they need it).

Mate, I get up before dawn for work, do PT for an hour after work and then have to cook dinner and unwind before starting again. I am not going to give up what remains of my time to track down and read books to support your arguments. Do what normal people do, source, analyse, compress and then disseminate the information you gained from those sources to support your arguments.

So sorry but no. Each and every one of those works has multiple sections dealing with this exact issue. The summary would be good enough in some cases.

Also, those arguments are consolidated. Those are history texts. Look in the index. You will not even take 5 seconds to quote your own post but you expect me to spend 5 hours writing a post that you will not even believe. Read the books and they explain them. Don't read the books and ignore what I say (as I expect you to do). You claim to know so much and yet you do not even take to time to cite your work. What examples do YOU have? I have plenty and those books outline them. Go for it.

Do you know the average engagement range in the last few insurgencies?

500 meters or greater in 52% of engagements in Afghanistan.

because simply stating 'I have a better gun' shows not only a disregard for the tactics of the war you are fighting, but also the recruiting pool you are using.

YOU talked about durability. I explained it. The m4 is a piece of shit.

That is circular logic. You are saying they will have what they need because they will need what they have.

Yes it is circular. But it holds true.

They need food

Not exactly lacking in the US.

they need water

Barring certain areas still not lacking.

they need warm clothes

Not lacking in the areas needed (not much need for very warm clothes in Texas)

they need ammo

Not in short supply here in the US.

they need tools/parts for equipment manufacture

Not in short supply here in the US.

they need coordination or you are just mazzing and calling it a campaign

Not difficult given time (which they will have).

do you know how to distribute food for the maximum effectiveness of your force?

Maximum? No. But I do have a friend who was an XO for an army unit during Korea. Amazing what you find when you talk to civilians.

Okay, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say you do do all of that.

Shouldn't be a big surprise. 3-gun shooting is very popular in the US.

First off, if you manage to outrange an infantry squad, they just call in organic/tasked support elements and you end up a red smear on the grass.

For every sniper in the US? Either you will have to perform one op per day per sector or you are going to be overwhelmed. You continue to fail in understanding how large an issue you are dealing with.

Second, just because you do all of that, does not mean that all of your recruiting pool does.

All of them do not need to. If just the total number of high power shooters, 3-gun shooters, 1,000 yard shooters, etc. from my last matches sign up we already have more snipers than the Army.

It came up twice on the page immediately before this one. I don't think it unreasonable to expect you to read a page that you posted on.

Take 5 goddamn second and quote it. Or at least tell me which post number it is.

Also, I find it kind of emblematic of your entire approach that in the same post you pout that I expect you to read a discussion that you are taking part in, while demanding that I read several books of your choosing in order to understand your position.

Let us see, you want me to prove my position which I do by mentioning several works. Then YOU expect me to read through a bunch of random posts looking for the ONE post that you want me to read. I told you exactly what I want you to read. You give me nothing except for the fact that it is on this topic. Five seconds for you, 10 minutes for me and then I still am not sure whether it is the right one because you have given me no hits as to which post you are talking about. I have a vague mention of content and apparently it was mentioned on the last page. Not a huge amount to go on. While on my side the book "Absolute Destruction" discusses supply problems in EVERY SINGLE CHAPTER. Big difference. Take the 5 goddamn seconds or stop talking.

Sometimes my worse natures prevail and I get curious. Maybe all the rebel-mongers should just go ahead and try it. It would rid the country of a lot of fundamentalists at least, but the clean-up would be messy. But then I remember that I'm a Humanist and that mass slaughter isn't a good solution in any case. But it's just so... tempting... to let people live out their delusions and actually pay the price, rather than just fantasize and boast about their supposed superiority and abilities endlessly. Hey, if they can fantasize, so can I, right?

Honestly people who wants a rebellion don't know what really going to happen if they do it. Like people who will recruit will use this to "settle scores" with people they have a beef with and lots of people will die between the crossfire. Then this will split people into factions with very different agendas . If they defeat the government then they will turn on each other next and even more people will die. If people think this will be clean then they are mistaken.

farson135:

They need food

Not exactly lacking in the US.

Your answers are freaking terrible. Theres food in Afghanistan but we couldnt just waltz in there without ANY supply chains or logistics.

Heres ALL the questions your answers raise:

If you are not or are thats going to reduce the numbers who agree with you. Maybe you HAVE these questions answered and wanted to save space but your answers really reeked of "I dunno theres food and shit everywhere im sure it will be fine" which would make Sun Tzu roll over in his grave. You may have a friend who is good with logistics. Is he THAT good? How large will your group be? Will you subdivide into cells? How will you continue to be effective with this method. I dont expect you to answer these, these are just meant to show that you cant fly by the seat of your pants in planning. Sure theres lots of food and guns and ammo in the USA for SALE. After you run out of your own food and ammo you need to buy it. And then problems begin.

Im not telling you it cant be done. Or it will ALWAYS fail. Im saying this stuff is HARD. VERY VERY VERY VERY HARD. The army currently has ALL of those questions above answered. They have backups for EVERY system in place that answers those questions. They are established and already organised. You say you have an advantage but you dont in respect to having an organisation already in place. And remember every moment where your group "exists" but isnt "ready to fight" is a moment where you can be discovered, ratted out by a defector or an infiltrator and potentially caught then swiftly tried for treason. Not to mention are you going to have to be fucking ruthless. Lets say a guy turns up and knows your face, your name, your goals and where you are doing your planning. He wants to leave, hes had enough, he has cold feet. Do you kill him? Executions are brutal as fuck but seem common to most insurgency movements. Cant afford to leak information about your group when hiding is your only real defence. Would you perform one on a fellow civilian?

Dont take this as an attempt to shit all over your ideas. Its just an interesting thing to think about in terms of what effort is needed to properly plan and execute an uprising in a non messy fashion. You also have to remember it would be quite a unique situation:

Different to vietnam because:

The US army cant and wont retreat out of its own damn country it becomes to "costly". Its an all or nothing victory. Not what happened in vietnam.
Its not "Your land". Its everyones land. Theres no "Native advantage" here particularly. The Americans know the lie of the American land intimately, you ALL do to a degree. The people in the army come from somewhere to be sure.
Different motivation entirely. Its not win or die for you, technically YOU are the aggressor. Its less political motivation that the vietkong had reacting to an outside invader.

Different to Afghanistan because:

Again, outside invader in this scenario.
Religious motivation results in a do AND die suicidally ferocious fighting force.
Natives again vs outsiders.
Feel like THEY are responding to an outside intervention who brought war to their country.

Do you know any examples in recent history (Since the development of organised logistics and a standing organised army as opposed to a uniformed militia) where an uprising from within has won without the almost total support of the army?
It seems to me that unless a LOT of the army defects to your side and stays there the odds are against you.
I dont know enough to comment on if they will or wont, but the media and PR are powerful things, and frankly propaganda is a certainty. You might be painted worse than satan himself and MANY people would believe it. These are the same people you need to buy food and ammo from as mentioned above.

When a government loses control of its own army THATS when its almost certainly going to be defeated by an uprising.
If its a case of "Army" vs "rebels" all from the same country i think it will go badly. But like you said maybe some of the army will defect. Im not American so i cant comment, im simply commenting on the history and logistics of an insurgency. Especially one that aims to take control of a nation rather than push out a foreign invader that has an economy to think about and a country to safely retreat to.

Zef Otter:
Honestly people who wants a rebellion don't know what really going to happen if they do it. Like people why will recruit will use this to "settle scores" with people they have a beef with and lots of people will die between the crossfire. Then this will split people into factions with very different agendas . If they defeat the government then they will turn on each other next and even more people will die. If people think this will be clean then they are mistaken.

That's a good point. We can expect a lot of "you are not a true patriot, die"-vigilantism, not just against loyal citizens but also between rebel groups and individuals, if push comes to shove, both based on ideological differences and more simple, more personal, more basic conflicts, where such reasons will be used as flimsy justifications.

BiscuitTrouser:
Your answers are freaking terrible. Theres food in Afghanistan but we couldnt just waltz in there without ANY supply chains or logistics.

First of all, are you trying to argue that there is a similar amount of food in Afghanistan as there is in the US? If so then I need a citation for that.

Second of all, an army is very different from a rebel force just starting out.

Third, this is only the beginning phase.

Heres ALL the questions your answers raise:

The vast majority (if not all) of your questions depend on the situation. You want me to tell you how much food I am going to take with me when I do not even know where I am fighting or what I am doing. If I am on my land and I am going to fight in and around my land then I may decide to take as much food, water, etc. as I can and then store it in strategic locations all over my land. If I am in the city then my assumptions change. And on.

WHERE is the food.

Look around. There are stores everywhere and most people have at least a week's worth of it in their home.

Do you have it already?

Some yes some no.

Are you taking it with you?
ALL of it? How?
Are you going to store it in a base?
Are you going to be totally mobile to avoid capture?
How will you transport all your food and water?
How many changes of clothes does each man have and will take with him?
Will you buy it as you go? Who will sell it to you and who will pay, HOW will you pay?
What if they dont want to sell to insurgents, will you MAKE them?
Where will keep your water, water is heavy, how will you carry it, how much will you need for operations, for travel and how will you know how long you will go without access to MORE water and food?
What do you do if your people begin to starve?
How will you avoid being ratted out by the first dissenter you see, how will you stop your group being infiltrated by an insider?
How will you screen candidates?
How will you establish communications between groups in other states without detection or infiltration?
How will you ensure total loyalty in your men?
Will you shoot deserters? People who might know too much?
How will you establish a chain of command and how will you deal with disagreement with said chain?
Are you willing to be ruthless enough to keep people silent and under your sway?
What do you target?
What if this angers the populace?
What do you do if you accidentally kill civilians?
Will you utilize suicide attacks?

Depends on the situation.

Do you know how much food and water your unit needs every day exactly?

Are you asking how much food and water a person needs per day? Or are you asking about a theoretical unit?

If you are not or are thats going to reduce the numbers who agree with you. Maybe you HAVE these questions answered and wanted to save space but your answers really reeked of "I dunno theres food and shit everywhere im sure it will be fine" which would make Sun Tzu roll over in his grave.

How can I or anyone else answer questions for every potential rebel group in the US? Have you ever read books on asymmetrical warfare? They are all very vague on most counts UNLESS they are dealing with very specific areas (like the book I read on guerrilla fighting in Switzerland). The assumptions and tactics that I would use fighting in the hills of central Texas will not work when fighting in the mountains of Idaho, the urban areas of the east coast, the deserts of New Mexico, the forests of Washington, the tundra of Alaska, the swamps of Louisiana, and on. Unless I am given an exact scenario then I cannot be exact in planning.

You may have a friend who is good with logistics. Is he THAT good?

Good enough to be an XO in the army we are fighting.

How large will your group be? Will you subdivide into cells? How will you continue to be effective with this method. I dont expect you to answer these, these are just meant to show that you cant fly by the seat of your pants in planning.

I cannot plan without a scenario. Or do you want me to cover the infinite number of possibilities that exist?

Sure theres lots of food and guns and ammo in the USA for SALE. After you run out of your own food and ammo you need to buy it. And then problems begin.

Or.......you hunt (as I might on my own land), make your own ammo, steal supplies from the military, keep food production channels open, etc.

The army currently has ALL of those questions above answered. They have backups for EVERY system in place that answers those questions. They are established and already organised.

No they do not. As stated, the military is not set up to defend against rebellion. If they were then perhaps they would ensure that the vast majority of their rifles were not made in one factory. They would also ensure that their troops had enough ammo to train (SOP dictates that a soldier should fire around 1200 rounds per year but most only average about 400). And on.

The military is not prepared for everything.

You say you have an advantage but you dont in respect to having an organisation already in place.

We have the advantage of being able to react far faster than an organization that is spread all over the world.

The US army cant and wont retreat out of its own damn country it becomes to "costly". Its an all or nothing victory.

It could. How many people from New York want to die so that Texas has to remain a part of the US?

Its not "Your land". Its everyones land. Theres no "Native advantage" here particularly. The Americans know the lie of the American land intimately, you ALL do to a degree. The people in the army come from somewhere to be sure.

What? It is our land. And a New Yorker is not going to know a lot about the lay of my land.

Its not win or die for you

How do you know? We are rebels, it would not be the first time rebels were executed in mass.

technically YOU are the aggressor.

How do you know? Rebellions occur because of the actions of others. Obviously in a rebellion the US government has done something to piss people off.

Its less political motivation that the vietkong had reacting to an outside invader.

South Vietnam was run by South Vietnamese politicians who did not listen to what the US had to say. The North was run by North Vietnamese politicians who did not listen to what the Soviets and Chinese had to say.

The issues behind the war had festered LONG before the US got involved. It was a political issue.

Do you know any examples in recent history (Since the development of organised logistics and a standing organised army as opposed to a uniformed militia) where an uprising from within has won without the almost total support of the army?

Read any of the efforts in Eastern Europe since the 1800s (especially the Balkans). You can also read about most of the major colonial rebellions, as well as the rebellions in newly decolonized states. You can also read about the Freikorps from the Napoleonic Wars, Italy during WW2, the history of Mexico, and on.

I dont know enough to comment on if they will or wont, but the media and PR are powerful things, and frankly propaganda is a certainty. You might be painted worse than satan himself and MANY people would believe it. These are the same people you need to buy food and ammo from as mentioned above.

Except there is one issue, we have more experience. You have seen how well the US propaganda efforts have done. Yes, there are some successes but on major issues they lose.

If its a case of "Army" vs "rebels" all from the same country i think it will go badly.

It depends.

Especially one that aims to take control of a nation rather than push out a foreign invader that has an economy to think about and a country to safely retreat to.

Who said anything about taking control of the country? Another factor you have not considered is separation.

Skeleon:

Zef Otter:
Honestly people who wants a rebellion don't know what really going to happen if they do it. Like people why will recruit will use this to "settle scores" with people they have a beef with and lots of people will die between the crossfire. Then this will split people into factions with very different agendas . If they defeat the government then they will turn on each other next and even more people will die. If people think this will be clean then they are mistaken.

That's a good point. We can expect a lot of "you are not a true patriot, die"-vigilantism, not just against loyal citizens but also between rebel groups and individuals, if push comes to shove, both based on ideological differences and more simple, more personal, more basic conflicts, where such reasons will be used as flimsy justifications.

Let's not forget that in the US you will run into race issues. A white supremacist group decides to use the uprising to start its own private race war and the rebellion as a whole loses a lot of goodwill among the population.

There is also the chance of a repeat of the Oklahoma City bombing. Someone decides to blow up a federal building and takes out a day care as collateral damage.

farson135:

The vast majority (if not all) of your questions depend on the situation. You want me to tell you how much food I am going to take with me when I do not even know where I am fighting or what I am doing. If I am on my land and I am going to fight in and around my land then I may decide to take as much food, water, etc. as I can and then store it in strategic locations all over my land. If I am in the city then my assumptions change. And on.

I didnt expect you to answer them, the point was in EVERY scenario they all need answering, and the answer "America is full of food, ammo and clothes" doesnt cut it. If you muck up any one of these questions in ANY operation people die or your force becomes less and less useful. I meant to illustrate the difficulty in predicting and organising a force of people in a myriad of situations.

How likely is it the army will starve in any given operation? However if you are operating in less hospitable terrain and you cock up you dont have a host of baggage trains and air drops to support you. People die.

Look around. There are stores everywhere and most people have at least a week's worth of it in their home.

And youre going to steal it? Unless they join of course. But as a mobile fighting force if you cant carry it with you its basically useless.

Depends on the situation.

Exactly, its pretty damn variable and hard to pin down. There is no definite answer and you have to think hard on your feet. The army has a host of people who can and will calculate every particular painstakingly for every operation knowing what is needed, where it is now, where to move it too and and HOW to move it most efficiently. Its a HUGE part of what the army is. Its pretty difficult to get the manpower and expertise together to replicate it as well as they do.

Are you asking how much food and water a person needs per day? Or are you asking about a theoretical unit?

A theoretical unit. Some civilians might be pretty demanding with food, and might expect to be fed well. And if youre moving through terrain you might not know youre guessing how much food you will need since youre at best guessing when you next get to supply up. You need to carry that yourself, you all do. Its pretty difficult to work that all out as you go.

How can I or anyone else answer questions for every potential rebel group in the US? Have you ever read books on asymmetrical warfare? They are all very vague on most counts UNLESS they are dealing with very specific areas (like the book I read on guerrilla fighting in Switzerland). The assumptions and tactics that I would use fighting in the hills of central Texas will not work when fighting in the mountains of Idaho, the urban areas of the east coast, the deserts of New Mexico, the forests of Washington, the tundra of Alaska, the swamps of Louisiana, and on. Unless I am given an exact scenario then I cannot be exact in planning.

What im saying is, if given an exact scenario, you need to be basically spot on with those questions or youre at a huge disadvantage.

I cannot plan without a scenario. Or do you want me to cover the infinite number of possibilities that exist?

This was a question about membership. You still havnt tackled how to recruit without giving yourselves away easily, tipping someone off who disagrees or accidentally inviting in a mole or turncloak. Its not an easy think to do, to have huge numbers AND be free of potential traitors. The army needs this less because they are the force thats out in the open while secrecy is very useful for you.

Or.......you hunt (as I might on my own land), make your own ammo, steal supplies from the military, keep food production channels open, etc.

I wonder how large a fighting force you can sustain using these methods. Legitimate question. Can you forage through the countryside with 100 people?

The army currently has ALL of those questions above answered. They have backups for EVERY system in place that answers those questions. They are established and already organised.

The military is not prepared for everything.

This is true, but its not the point i was making. The military has the basics, communications, supplies, a chain of command and many trained planning staff to ensure these cock ups happen as infrequently as possible. You dont, you need to build these things from the ground up which is hard.

We have the advantage of being able to react far faster than an organization that is spread all over the world.

It depends what elements of the military are closest to you and who reacts. What % of the potential military effort is currently over seas at the moment?

It could. How many people from New York want to die so that Texas has to remain a part of the US?

If youre going to fight people in New York youre no longer in your land, this is a response to further down when my point was that you guys are on an equal playing field in terms of fighting somewhere that isnt your own property. Then we encounter the issues of an occupation. And it will be, for some, an occupation since they live in Texas and now its seceded against their will, forcing them to live under a government they do not wish to rule them. You may even have an insurgency for your new insurgency. Insurgception?

What? It is our land. And a New Yorker is not going to know a lot about the lay of my land.

I mean fighting on land that isnt your property. If you want to actively attack military assets youre going to need to do this. On that level youre at the same advantage. If not a slight disadvantage.

How do you know? We are rebels, it would not be the first time rebels were executed in mass.

And this is something that people joining your group will be aware of BEFORE they join by choice. This isnt like people joining groups where the country is already being invaded and they feel like they die anyway if they join or not. I meant "An army is in my country and im going to be captured or taken anyway so i may as well join the insurgency" rather than AFTER they join. Youre not compelled to join by street warfare spilling over and destroying your house. Or your family dying to collateral damage.

How do you know? Rebellions occur because of the actions of others. Obviously in a rebellion the US government has done something to piss people off.

If you want the surprise you boast of you need to fire the first shot. You can claim tensions and such are a motivator but the first act of war will label you the aggressor in MANY eyes.

Read any of the efforts in Eastern Europe since the 1800s (especially the Balkans). You can also read about most of the major colonial rebellions, as well as the rebellions in newly decolonized states. You can also read about the Freikorps from the Napoleonic Wars, Italy during WW2, the history of Mexico, and on.

Ill do that, thanks.

Except there is one issue, we have more experience. You have seen how well the US propaganda efforts have done. Yes, there are some successes but on major issues they lose.

Are you shitting me? "Better red than dead? Youre a damn commie? Go back to Russia?" The ENTIRE red scare? Demonising an enemy is what the USA is fucking GREAT at. Its one of the best examples ive seen in modern history of making your enemy almost unanimously hated in your nation.

image

That was a major issue. And communism, communists, and anything even REMOTELY related is one of the biggest hates of America to THIS DAY.

Who said anything about taking control of the country? Another factor you have not considered is separation.

True, i did not. Taking and holding a section of land will be difficult though, seceding has its own issues. Its going to be difficult to get everyone who DOESNT agree with the secession out of the new country. They might even fight you.

BiscuitTrouser:
I didnt expect you to answer them, the point was in EVERY scenario they all need answering, and the answer "America is full of food, ammo and clothes" doesnt cut it. If you muck up any one of these questions in ANY operation people die or your force becomes less and less useful. I meant to illustrate the difficulty in predicting and organising a force of people in a myriad of situations.

MY point was that the operation would not be as difficult as he claimed. He basically said it was impossible. My point is that a rebel force can live off of the land easily enough in the US but the military expects different supply lines.

And youre going to steal it? Unless they join of course. But as a mobile fighting force if you cant carry it with you its basically useless.

It depends on the force. I never claimed that a rebellion would share my ideals.

The army has a host of people who can and will calculate every particular painstakingly for every operation knowing what is needed, where it is now, where to move it too and and HOW to move it most efficiently. Its a HUGE part of what the army is. Its pretty difficult to get the manpower and expertise together to replicate it as well as they do.

Except for the basic fact that a rebel group does not need that much shit. Von Lettow's army was able to live off of the land while the British, Belgian, and Portuguese forces dragged in supplies from their home areas and those supplies included the best technology those countries could provide (including airplanes, trucks, artillery, etc). Guess who won.

What im saying is, if given an exact scenario, you need to be basically spot on with those questions or youre at a huge disadvantage.

There is always leeway. That is why the army is able to function. The US military is not as good at moving supplies as you believe. Just before their deployment a group of soldiers was expected to take a shooting test. They did not have any bullets (they are still on American soil) so they ran around shouting bang bang at targets. And that is not the end of the problems.

You still havnt tackled how to recruit without giving yourselves away easily

Because it depends on the situation. Read through "Vietcong Memoirs". It is from a former Vietcong guerrilla who was actually one of the most important government officials in South Vietnam. He describes different recruiting methods in the cities vs. the countryside. Obviously it would be similar in the US.

I wonder how large a fighting force you can sustain using these methods. Legitimate question. Can you forage through the countryside with 100 people?

Von Lettow managed to supply about 10,000 men using these methods. As for the US, if we are talking about my area of Texas there is enough game to last several years.

It depends what elements of the military are closest to you and who reacts. What % of the potential military effort is currently over seas at the moment?

About 1/7 is deployed overseas, plus you have to include Naval and Air Force personnel who are not "deployed" overseas but are not IN the US. Then you have the non-combat personnel (upwards of 70% of the Navy and Air Force and somewhere around 40% of the Army), and on.

Basically it is hard to pin down because the military does not release those numbers directly.

If youre going to fight people in New York youre no longer in your land, this is a response to further down when my point was that you guys are on an equal playing field in terms of fighting somewhere that isnt your own property

Ostensibly the rebels are going to defend themselves and the military will do the invading.

I mean fighting on land that isnt your property. If you want to actively attack military assets youre going to need to do this. On that level youre at the same advantage. If not a slight disadvantage.

The military land will likely be around the rebels land.

And this is something that people joining your group will be aware of BEFORE they join by choice. This isnt like people joining groups where the country is already being invaded and they feel like they die anyway if they join or not.

Given the number of civilians usually killed in these kinds of wars it could very easily be an us or them mentality.

Youre not compelled to join by street warfare spilling over and destroying your house. Or your family dying to collateral damage.

You may very well be. We do not know how this war started.

If you want the surprise you boast of you need to fire the first shot. You can claim tensions and such are a motivator but the first act of war will label you the aggressor in MANY eyes.

Who fired the first shot at the rebellion at Athens, Tennessee? It was one of the sheriff's men. The rebels quickly gained the initiative.

Are you shitting me? "Better red than dead? Youre a damn commie? Go back to Russia?" The ENTIRE red scare? Demonising an enemy is what the USA is fucking GREAT at. Its one of the best examples ive seen in modern history of making your enemy almost unanimously hated in your nation.

Statistically that was not very successful. Studies have shown that many people were turned off by these efforts and the few that followed them quickly lost interest as casualties started increasing in our wars.

That was a major issue. And communism, communists, and anything even REMOTELY related is one of the biggest hates of America to THIS DAY.

That really was not because of the propaganda. That was more because of the Communists actions. Sure they were used as propaganda tools but the killing fields did far more to turn Americans than McCarthyism.

I'd just like to point out that Farson has done quite a bit to take it from "well oh there's no point to have firearms for protection because the military has drones, the end."

I think ultimately the point is the military is not going to be able to just roll over an armed and pissed off population, nuff said.

xDarc:
I'd just like to point out that Farson has done quite a bit to take it from "well oh there's no point to have firearms for protection because the military has drones, the end."

I think ultimately the point is the military is not going to be able to just roll over an armed and pissed off population, nuff said.

On the other hand, it's not as if an armed uprising will be an easy thing. There are difficulties apart from drones.

Well, the shifting of the talk might have been for the best.

farson135:
/snip

I don't know, it seems that you think "the revolution" will be just a small guerrilla movement in Texas. It might work, since a small enough fighting force can try to go through without thinking too much about logistics, but the same strategy of scavenging doesn't work for a full on rebel army. The problem then is that the military actually does have military bases out of Texas. Not to mention, that the United States Military isn't a foreign army and all of their gear is right in the country, unlike with Von Lettow.

It seems that you two have different ideas of what the revolution will be. The thing is that I think Biscuit Trouser is talking about a full on revolution like the one Adam Kokesh, is advocating. Not a small state clash/riot/ rebellion like I think you're thinking off.

Trying to overthrow the whole of the U.S government is stupid. Being annoying and costly enough to make the local government change whatever laws started the rebellion sounds more likely to succeed.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Are you and Darc talking about just staying at home and resisting, or going on a full on war march to the capitol? They sort of mean two different things.

xDarc:
I'd just like to point out that Farson has done quite a bit to take it from "well oh there's no point to have firearms for protection because the military has drones, the end."

I think ultimately the point is the military is not going to be able to just roll over an armed and pissed off population, nuff said.

That actually requires quite a bit of a presupposition that a majority (or at least a VERY sizable minority) would empathize with the uprising enough to actually act on it. As it stands, that's far from a given. The most recent study I know of on the topic suggests that just over a quarter (29%) of Americans think armed revolution is in our near future, and I hardly think it's safe to assume that all of those will be sympathetic to Kokesh's cause. Point of fact, Gallup polls suggest that a solid majority would be unsympathetic towards his initial stance[1], much less his call for a violent overthrow of the federal government. And of those that actually are sympathetic to his cause and believe that violent revolution is in our future, it's questionable how many of those are willing/able to fight at his behest. And let's not forget that civilian alignment with the government is also possible (including among those who suggested that revolution is in our future). In fact - barring exceptional circumstances - I'd deem that likely among those tasked with maintaining order, such as the police force and the national guard (if you consider the latter separate from the general armed forces).

Point being, I'm seeing a lot of suggestions that the civilian population will Zerg rush its way to victory, but even barring international influence favoring the existing government, and ESPECIALLY barring the suggestions I've seen regarding the use of total war against the government (Which ultimately harms the civilian population more than the armed forces) that just can't be assumed. If there is a revolution to be had, it will not be 'everyone v. the government'. People can reasonably be expected to go either way, and what data we have suggests the government would ultimately end up with the popular support. Now that data could be wrong, but it's folly to treat that as a given, especially when less than 0.0018% of the population claimed to be in support of Kokesh's initial plan.

[1] 43% of respondents stated that they were totally satisfied with the state of gun laws, 38% stated the laws needed to be more strict and only 5% said they needed to be less strict

This is a good place to remember that non-violent protests have their root of success in the threat of violence. The idea is to make a display of power and show "this is how many people we can raise against you, imagine if we were all violent as opposed to just showing up". Typically non-violent movements are also heavily backed by terrorist organizations, the 1960s for example were a time when liberal terrorists were running around shooting people, making and setting off bombs, and engaging in kidnappings, perhaps the most famous incident being the one that involved Patty Hearst which raised all kinds of questions about "Stockholm Syndrome" when she was shown to be at least partially complicit with some of the actions of her captors after her abduction.

People who think anything can be accomplished by simply showing up and crying, are totally ignorant. This is why things like "Occupy Wall Street" pretty much failed. At the end of the day if your not causing problems for the people your targeting your irrelevant, and if you can be dispersed easily by the police when your in their way, it doesn't matter much either. Basically you need to be in a position where there are enough crazy people acting, and enough of a threat of violence, that even when the people in a protest aren't doing anything, there is going to be fear of retaliation.

On a certain level, this is the first protest of it's sort that I think might have a chance of going somewhere, largely because the crowd is going to be armed, even if non-violent it's pretty clear that a bunch of people with loaded guns could do horrendous damage if they want to. Likewise attempts to arrest these people for demonstrating (especially if they are willing to turn back) which are then met with lethal force in response will probably be... interesting. Needless to say I wouldn't want to be the cop sent out there to deal with it, and honestly the big fear from how this sounds is less that the protestors are going to start shooting, but that some anti-gun liberal democrat is going to demand the police "enforce the law" and start arresting people, followed by some cops trying to carry out that order.

In short it's an interesting situation because if the protestors just go out there, make a scene, and eventually turn back, it makes a strong pro-gun statement and makes the people they are protesting look weak, and like a group of buffoons. If it goes beyond that and a large scale firefight breaks out, it's again going to make the authorities
look bad for starting something like that.

Of course this is all academic, especially with the leader apparently out of commission it doesn't seem likely that it will happen. Also I'll be honest in saying that most people today lack backbone which is why things have gotten so out of control with the government to begin with. Today mostly people think they can force change by sitting on their butts, and talking smack, and creating petitions and lists simply acting like they are going to do something. You just don't see any kind of effective, large-scale civil disobedience anymore. "Occupy Wall Street" was incredible only in that people actually did something, albeit what they did was pathetic given that it generated very little in the way of fear among the target group... big business types who pretty much just flew over the protestors in their private helicopters and such. With this protest it's pretty much putting the government on the spot, either forcing them to take action or not, and either way is going to make a point.... the guns make all the difference, as opposed to sitting there saying "stop what your doing or I'll sit here like a lump!"

xDarc:
I'd just like to point out that Farson has done quite a bit to take it from "well oh there's no point to have firearms for protection because the military has drones, the end."

I think ultimately the point is the military is not going to be able to just roll over an armed and pissed off population, nuff said.

There's a massive difference between being "pissed off" and fighting the US military. It's the same difference between being pissed off at your boss and bringing a gun to work and shooting him. That last, necessary leap is a big one psychologically, and not always for the reasons one would expect.

If you ever get to, I recommend watching The Fog of War, which could best be described as Former US Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamera's reflections of his time working for the US government, mainly WWII and the early Cold War, including Vietnam. When he was first working at Harvard, he helped to run a study to determine the bombing efficiency of US air forces. Turns out, 20% of the planes were having to return before reaching their destinations. There was no common thread in the abort reports; many were listed as mechanical issues or failures. It was then that the researchers and brass discovered something key: the pilots and crews were afraid. Over the next few runs, the commander went on the lead plane and ordered every plane to drop their bombs or face discipline; efficiency rose to 95%.

Fear is an incredibly powerful emotion (one you should be very familiar with, if your postings are any indication). Just because a population is pissed off does not mean that they will actually resist. The vast majority of any population will simply do what they need to to survive, because they fear death or destitution, and more often than not, keeping your head down and staying out of the fray will do the trick.

Honestly people here are weird, they think our government is some evil dictator that they need to over throw. I mean I understand if its a real dictator rather then just a minority who is butt hurt over guns. Americans never been under a real dictator, don't see the government using troops to put down rioters with guns and such.

I think people who savor such rebellion have no idea what its really like to wage a insurgency. Also those who suffer more are the people who don't want this, they get in a cross fire between militants and government forces, face shortages of food power and heat. Its not clean or happy and I think they got no idea the human cost of this.

Yah I can see this be very bloody since with lack of law in order in the war zones there would be high number of murders by criminals, gangs, and the Militants.

Sorry just getting a headache from people who have Red dawn/Rambo fantasies.

farson135:

You insult me and then you continue to show an unbelievable level of ignorance about the task you are discussing.

THAT IS STILL A HUGE JOB. The US is huge country and moving a massive amount of supplies around is a huge job. Once again, US bases are not put in places that are easy to supply. You cannot drive everywhere in the US in a day. In order to supply those bases it will take several days to several weeks (depending on the distance and the conditions) which either means switching off drivers and guards (more manpower) or it means stopping and resting. In addition, you have to be able to refuel with either means checkpoints along the way or a constantly routating number of fuel trucks following the convoy. And that is not even an end to the problems.

You are presupposing that Supplies need to get from point A (q-store/supply dump) to points B C D E F etc (operational areas). What actually happens is Supplies go from point A1(supply dump) to A2 (operational area) B1 to B2 C1 to C2 and so on and so forth. Still a huge task, but it is being undertaken by what is probably the second largest organised entity on the planet.

Never said holding territory. I have said several times that the US military is nowhere near large enough to hold every point which means that the rebels can hold what the military does not hold.

I was talking about states rebelling. I never said that the rebels would defend that exact territory.

Which is a bad assumption. Again, stop assuming that the entire bloody country is going to side with you.

What are we diffusing bombs now?

EOD is explosive ordinance disposal, not just CIED work. if you are destroying supplies (which will include explosive ordinance you will need to be able to conduct EOD

Destroy the supports on a building and collapse the building on top of the supplies (I have done that before and many construction workers can say the same). Set up a bomb and blow it up. Remove key components and destroy them. Etc.

Using explosives that you magically have and magically managed to transport in sufficient quantity to where they are needed.

Shall I insult you for being ignorant again?

No you shouldn't because you are in no position to do so

After I tell you how foolish your statement is will you calm the fuck down? I will trade you blow for blow but this shit is tiresome.

I can actually agree with you here, talking to someone who thinks that a revolution is immune to every clusterfuck that any armed force suffers is tiresome

Where did I say the rebels would defend a point? Nowhere. I said block access. That could mean collapsing a building on the supplies (which might also destroy them). It might mean destroying roads, bridges, airports, etc. I could even mean setting up a charge and collapsing a building or a mountain on top of a road. Try thinking outside the box.

Ladies and gentlemen, having found strongpointing a road beyond his forces capability, Farson now wants to move mountains instead. I can see the Army coming up to the destroyed building in the middle of the road and saying
'shit, foiled again, I sure wish we had engineers in this army, oh well'

There is a box for a reason, it is because combat is a very fine line between 'this will work', and 'this will get everyone of your friends killed'. It is not an environment conducive to 'shit why don't we try this?'

No, using manpower and vehicles.

That's what logistics are. The stuff you have and the stuff you use to transport it with. Saying 'I will have this stuff', is relying on the magical logistics fairy.

Plus, Vehicles are big, hot and loud, they show up nice when the supporting elements come to support the element that you are attacking.

Because you know how quickly the rebels and the military will be able to begin offensive operations in a theoretical war.

I know roughly how long it takes an insurgent movement to gain momentum, the challanges they face in unifying, the most likely tactics used by the COIN operators and the essential situation on the ground as of now. (I use now, as you are presupposing a US military in the state that it is now.) This allows me to make certain assumptions as to what is and is not feasible.

It has been done before and with interesting results.

With a horrific loss ratio in terms of men and materiel on the part of the attacking force. This plays into the fact that, comparatively. the US is very culturally casualty averse. The Taliban is willing to lose 150 men to take an outpost held by 10 westerners, something that does not, I think, translate across to the US.

BTW you do realize that a huge number of civilian gun owners are former military, police, rangers, etc. right?

And you are again, just assuming that these people will pick up arms for you.

Right, so you are going to deploy the special forces to take on an armed rebellion. The guys who could be anywhere on earth at any one time and whose numbers are so small that they could not even take down a major rebellion in the state of Montana on their own.

No, their job is to interdict command elements and attrit insurgent supplies/manpower while the rest of the force comes to bear. That is how defence works, your rapid elements hit and hold while your heavier elements come to bear. I think I was pretty clear on that.

Not to mention a major rebellion covering multiple states. Also, what makes you think that the police would stay loyal to the government? Hell, what makes you think the state government would stay loyal to the US government?

Because, as I led Xdarc through the pro-rebellion side has consistently overestimated the size of their own force

YOU continue to assume that the rebellion would be tiny. It would not be. A real rebellion would rally a huge number of people to its side because if they are going to rebel then obviously there must be a major issue at hand.

Imagine a scale, from Tim Mcveigh, to george washington, both of these were rebels, both of these decided that the current government had to go, this tells us that a rebellion can be just one nutcase, it is not a huge number of people.

Because you know exactly how this rebellion starts. The President institutes martial law in DC and begins executing people for treason, seizes firearms, forces papers to close their doors, and on (already been done during the Civil War but to Chicago).

A government does not just flip a switch and say 'yo, we are evil now' it is a gradual change of well intentioned policies that leads to oppression. people have a different definition of what oppression is and so deem the government hostile at differing points. Therefore, the beginnings of an insurgency tend to be a comparatively small amount of people unless facing an alien threat.

Are you trying to argue that only a handful of people would be outraged enough to take up arms? Also, one wonders how SWAT is going to figure these things out. Are they magical?

They are police/intelligence professionals (swat doesn't figure things out, they are the result of things being figured out).

As just one scenario as just one demonstration
Say Bob is a wannabe insurgent. he goes to a rally, burns a picture of the president and says 'lets go and kill this fucker', now he is kinda covered by freedom of speech, bit Tim, who is an intelligence professional, takes note and decides to keep an eye on him.

Bob then goes home and meets with close friends John and Bill, they decide that it is time for revolution and gather up everyone they can convince in their home town, lets be generous and say 20 people. They decide to kidnap and kill the, local liaison for the DHS and kill him as a way of saying to the people 'yo guys, lets get in on this come on'.

So they kill poor DHS dude and then everyone starts getting antsy, what's going on? What do we do? So Tim, sitting at his nice desk, thinks through who would want to kill the guy, running through suspects and coming onto Your Lot, he remembers Bob and starts takes a close look at him. He then sees John, Bill and all the rest conducting meetings, calls in a swat team for a friendly chat and the rest is history.

Better than the military who is killing a bunch of innocent people. The US military has proven time and time again that it does not have the ability to perform operations in civilian areas without killing innocent people. Every single body will end up on a video on Youtube. See how quickly the rebellion spreads from there.

All US strikes are taken on one assumption 'it is better for a Non-american to die than to risk the life of an american' So to assume that pattern would continue is problematic.

In addition, think of how this is going to play in the media, you won't be brave freedom fighters, you will be cowards hiding behind schoolchildren.

No it was not. People like you are ALWAYS emphasizing the military's ability to utilize massive levels of force.

People like me? Mate I have been arguing about tactics, logistics and the COIN experience, not overwhelming firepower.

Read through the comments on this very topic. I have not been involved in this topic from the beginning and I still have seen those arguments.

I'm sorry, but where you not just whinging that I asked you to read this thread. Do you have no self awareness.

Strawman. Would you kindly stop make shit up and read what I am telling you?

'you did not mention training (which would be irrelevant anyway),' If you regret what you have said, retract, don't claim that I made it up.

Why would training be irrelevant in this case? Because the rebels have training (the US is a militarized society in many ways)

It is fucking not, fetishing the military is not the same as being trained. the DPRK is a militized society, Israel is, the US is not.

the US military does not train its troops very well,

Compared to the rest of the west, maybe, compared to the rest of the world, no.

and in the short term the US military is not going to be able to act with any level of force which means that the rebels have time to train. What level is arguable.

False, it graduates its level of force as the threat increases, meaning that it keeps pace with your insurgency. You are trying to win a race with someone who is faster than you and who has a head start.

YOU claim that EVERYBODY agrees with you. Look through a few of these posts and tell me that again.

No I claim that everybody at least sees where everybody else stands.

So you are saying that the other posters went for the flashy because that is what they appreciate. That is not what you said before.

I don't see how it contradicts my stance. I merely clarified.

BTW all of those little things the rebels have (if they need it).

HA no. You think you can pull a functioning medical system or robust comms network from nowhere?

So sorry but no. Each and every one of those works has multiple sections dealing with this exact issue. The summary would be good enough in some cases.

Also, those arguments are consolidated. Those are history texts. Look in the index. You will not even take 5 seconds to quote your own post but you expect me to spend 5 hours writing a post that you will not even believe. Read the books and they explain them. Don't read the books and ignore what I say (as I expect you to do). You claim to know so much and yet you do not even take to time to cite your work. What examples do YOU have? I have plenty and those books outline them. Go for it.

You are demanding that I track down, and at least parse your books and then claiming that that is less effort than scrolling to the bottom of the page, clicking 10 and looking for my name? Are you insane or just that determined to die on a pointless hill.

500 meters or greater in 52% of engagements in Afghanistan.

Now, while the effective range for an aimed shot from the M4 is 300 meters, what do you think the range for a squad engagement is? (hint, there is a certain amount of lining up)

YOU talked about durability. I explained it. The m4 is a piece of shit.

nice evasion.

Yes it is circular. But it holds true.

No, effectiveness of a fighting force degrades as supplies dwindle. If your force is motivated enough (doubtful) they can keep going regardless, but logic dictates that if you, for example, run out of explosives, you can no longer blow things up.

food Not exactly lacking in the US.

I am just going to skip onto what you said further down the page here, one weeks supply in their houses? What happens week 2, or week three? What happens when the military opens page 1 of 'COIN ops' and says 'we have plenty of food in these here government zones'

water Barring certain areas still not lacking.

yeah, because the military would never think to surveil natural water points

Not lacking in the areas needed (not much need for very warm clothes in Texas)

No, people have clothes that they can wear when going to the shops, or that look good. Warm clothes war ones that you can spend the night in in below freezing, that aren't bright orange or white, that don't rustle are somewhat rarer.

ammo Not in short supply here in the US.

Which needs to be kept out of the wet, which can't be left in the sun all day, which needs to be appropriate for the rest of your group (imagine how awkward it would be to show up with 5.56 and everyone else needed 7.62), which needs to be transported and cached, which will be attrited by the opposing force.

tools Not in short supply here in the US.

Which need to be maintained and transported, which will be targeted and thus will suffer attrition.

coordination Not difficult given time (which they will have).

I'm sorry, coordination of a fighting force is not difficult? Are you being serious.

also, you keep assuming that you have time.

Maximum? No. But I do have a friend who was an XO for an army unit during Korea. Amazing what you find when you talk to civilians.

The job of an XO is not supply distribution, it is managing the people who actually know how to do that. Essentially I have asked if you are a chef, and you have said 'no, but I know someone who used to manage a restaurant 50 years ago.

For every sniper in the US? Either you will have to perform one op per day per sector or you are going to be overwhelmed. You continue to fail in understanding how large an issue you are dealing with.

you keep assuming that everyone with a gun would be on your side.

In addition, here is what you do, you put a section (sorry squad, differing terminologies) on patrol, the keep going until someone is dumb enough to shoot at them. Attempt to engage using fire and movement, if that does not work you will have an element tasked to hit anything beyond their capability. Once the threat is dealt with, continue the patrol until someone is dumb enough to shoot at you...

All of them do not need to. If just the total number of high power shooters, 3-gun shooters, 1,000 yard shooters, etc. from my last matches sign up we already have more snipers than the Army.

A good shot does not a sniper make.

Take 5 goddamn second and quote it. Or at least tell me which post number it is.

the clockmaker:
If you want to work out the manning of your insurgency, you're going to have to aim a bit lower than tens of millions
-First off, how many people in your nation are physically non-disabled. (this does not include people with things that will keep them from sustained operations, like the obese, diabetics, epileptics, people that cannot be relied upon to act in that crucial moment)
-Next, how many of those are physically fit and can actually navigate terrain in a high-intensisty situation. Sure you can get a thin bloke and he'll look cool carrying his tricked out armalite, but can he actually conduct fire an movement, or can he actually move stealthily (which is a lot more physically demanding than normal movement) when trained personnel are looking for him
-Next, you need people who are politically active enough that they give a damn about the issue spectrum that you are active in. Most people, so long as it doesn't harm their job are not going to care about say, the right seize government spending records.
-Next, they need to be politically aligned with you. More on this later
-Next, they need to be politically radicalised like you. More people will stamp and shout and wave signs than will ever be willing to actually bring the system down. Look at occupy, how many of those people are still actively continuing the 'struggle' and all they had to do was stay in one place
-Next they have to have access to a weapon, supply and ammo as well as the ability to maintain the weapon in the field. This is not the same thing as maintaining the weapon at home and you need to keep them in supply.
-Next they need to be willing to kill or die in pursuit of their radical beliefs, many will say that they are, but not many actually are.
-Next they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and destroy their own infrastructure. Essentially they have to be willing to shit where they sleep, because when an insurgent blows up a power plant, the army brings in generators and wraps up a bit warmer because they are trained for this, and civilians freeze to death.
-Next they need to know that an insurgency is happening and know that their goals align with yours. In a nation where a fair amount of people don't know the religion of the president, masses of the nation would see your 'glorious movement' as communist, the lefties would be calling it dictatorial and I'm sure some poor deluded folks would call you muslim.
-Next they need to agree that now is the right time, or that your movement is conducting the right methods or that essentially, if an insurgency is called for, you are the best bet. You will get a fuckton of people who will look at you and say 'well we do need to bring down the government, but not yet' Many will see your group as more Timothy McVeigh then Ho Chi Min.
-Next you need leaders to organize the whole thing, and they don't just pop out of thin air. PS-don't suggest your self for this.
-Next you need people staying power, another point to take from the Occupy movement. It got cold, they went home. Same thing, how many of your people are going to spend one night without food and decide the whole thing is bullshit. How many are going to see one mate get killed and decide never to pick up a weapon again.
-Next you need people who will not accept minor concessions as reasons to end the insurgency. Say, by way of example, you went to fight because the government legislated that every firearm you owned had to be registered with the federal government. By way of some miracle you got some sort of fighting force together and the government was worried enough to say 'okay, register it with your local police station who will be legally bound to keep it private from any higher level of authority unless that weapon is used in a crime' from there 90% of your people claim victory and go home, leaving you out in the cold.
-Finally you need to get all of this collated after the people are radicalized but before the hammer comes down. Sure, if you got a dozen people together, you could convert and gather a hundred, that hundred could gather a thousand etc etc, but the second you have that dozen up in arms, the hammer is going to come down on them.

and

The question is not 'what would happen if you managed to get a unified, completely motivated, fully equipped, well provisioned and coordinated insurgent force native to the US with sufficient men/women to actually conduct operations for more than a half hour' it is can you get a force of that character.

Non-conventional does not excuse a force from the requirement for food, water, bullets, coordination, communication, warmth, shelter etc. And unification is especially important, you don't want to spend a month bringing men and materiel into positon and have your position compromised by some random who takes a pot shot at your target.

Then you have the political division of the personal base that you are trying to recruit from, as many people will take up arms in favour of the government.

Then you have the fact that even though insurgents can do damage to conventional forces, they do so at great cost to themselves, often losing between 5/10 men for every experienced soldier they manage to kill.

Then there is the fact that the method of insurgency that you talk about, referencing the Boston bombings, will drive more and more people into the arms of the government.

Then there is the issue of motivation, you cannot use Islamist insurgents as a barometer for what US citizens would do, as they are by definition zealots, willing to die for very little benefit because dying for the cause is its own reward.

Then you have the fact that The US and her allies have been improving their counter-insurgency capabilities for the past decade.

Then you have the fact that there is no first order power that would want the insurgents to take power, it goes against the interests of everybody for the US administration to fall. Plus anyone who is caught taking money from, say Iran, will immediately discredit the movement.

Then you have the fact that the US has been learning to hate insurgents, it is a bad word in the minds of your average citizen.

Then you have... So so many other factors as to why this is insane.

A US insurgency does not, in any way shape or form have any basis in reality.

I was reluctant to post it again as people reading this thread should not have to read the same words four times over to save those too lazy to read the very same page they posted on. I only do so now to stop your endless complaining.

Let us see, you want me to prove my position which I do by mentioning several works.

Mentioning that someone else said something that you refuse to elaborate upon does not prove your position. To claim so is flat out lunacy.

Then YOU expect me to read through a bunch of random posts looking for the ONE post that you want me to read. I told you exactly what I want you to read. You give me nothing except for the fact that it is on this topic. Five seconds for you, 10 minutes for me and then I still am not sure whether it is the right one because you have given me no hits as to which post you are talking about. I have a vague mention of content and apparently it was mentioned on the last page. Not a huge amount to go on. While on my side the book "Absolute Destruction" discusses supply problems in EVERY SINGLE CHAPTER. Big difference. Take the 5 goddamn seconds or stop talking.

You are not going to spin it so that your demand that I track down your books is a lesser thing than me expecting you to read the very same discussion that you are taking part in. Or is your opinion so well thought out that it needs to input before wading into a discussion and shouting your point of view. Although, considering the amount of thought you seem to have put into your insurgency, this should not surprise me.

farson135:

MY point was that the operation would not be as difficult as he claimed. He basically said it was impossible. My point is that a rebel force can live off of the land easily enough in the US but the military expects different supply lines.

Living off the land is a disadvantage period. Even if you do manage it. How many troops do you think will die of cholera, dissentry, be struck with food poisoning for ill prepared game, minor infection either slowing them or killing them without basic antibiotics. You cant forage anti biotics without stealing or buying thats for sure. You also might have a lack of trained medics and medical supplies. You may be a hunter. You cant assume everyone else is. Hunting in the past was a mainstay of the economy, many citizens practiced it for survival anyway. You cant expect everyone with a gun today to be a huntsman nor be used to living off the land. You may need to keep your force smaller because "providers" are vastly outnumbered by those with no hunting skill or experience.

Except for the basic fact that a rebel group does not need that much shit. Von Lettow's army was able to live off of the land while the British, Belgian, and Portuguese forces dragged in supplies from their home areas and those supplies included the best technology those countries could provide (including airplanes, trucks, artillery, etc). Guess who won.

Did some reading there. Ironically the boast that he managed to forage with 10'000 people is a little circular. I read about him and it seems he pretty much rode the first victory by capturing and holding a recently well stocked outpost. For which he needed a lot of men to make said capture possible. If youre intending to operate with fewer men than that capturing supplies will be harder since hit and run attacks tend to be the tactics of smaller forces. And hit and run doesnt really lend itself to capturing and holding. You should remember that Von Lettow commanded an established army before he outfitted them into a guerilla unit. They were not ragtag. They were not untested. The chain of command for capturing and holding was clear and established. Theres a "critical mass" sort of number in play here. Of course hit and run groups will naturally be easier to forage for due to smaller numbers.

I wouldnt expect you to be able to reproduce the "Greatest guerilla action ever recorded" when it was done with a skilled and experienced commander using trained and battle hardened troops with whatever leader YOU can muster and some untested militia who are being thrust into a newly formed chain of command. Simply put relying on being as good as one of the greatest tacticians of the age is a little... presumptuous. Thats like saying I could reproduce the battle of the 300 with some pointy sticks and some dudes i picked up down at the gym.

There is always leeway. That is why the army is able to function. The US military is not as good at moving supplies as you believe. Just before their deployment a group of soldiers was expected to take a shooting test. They did not have any bullets (they are still on American soil) so they ran around shouting bang bang at targets. And that is not the end of the problems.

Oh of course. I just think the number of men dying from, exposure, infection, prolonged injury or various illness will blatantly be on your side if any side at all.

Because it depends on the situation. Read through "Vietcong Memoirs". It is from a former Vietcong guerrilla who was actually one of the most important government officials in South Vietnam. He describes different recruiting methods in the cities vs. the countryside. Obviously it would be similar in the US.

You know where you live. You know your area. Are you going to wait for the invitation? Are YOU going to start it? Im asking you personally. You live either in a city or a country side and have a specific situation. Im asking you how you intend to join or recruit, if you decide to lead it, without being spotted.

Von Lettow managed to supply about 10,000 men using these methods. As for the US, if we are talking about my area of Texas there is enough game to last several years.

He had a force large enough and disciplined to take and hold land to effectively capture and hold supplies. If you could muster a standing army of that magnitude in one place and organise them efficiently maybe you could replicate it.

Ostensibly the rebels are going to defend themselves and the military will do the invading.

If you intend to secede why wouldnt they just annex you? If YOU intend to hold any large area land you need to take SOME land within it from those who disagree or military strongholds inside the area you wish to become independent.

The military land will likely be around the rebels land.

This is fairly dependant on a lot of things, but my answer above covers it i think.

Given the number of civilians usually killed in these kinds of wars it could very easily be an us or them mentality.

You may very well be. We do not know how this war started.

It would be political suicide for the government to be the aggressor, unless your group was established and the government pre emptively sends a swat team to go clear you out. Then its debatable. We are discussing the early days anyway.

Who fired the first shot at the rebellion at Athens, Tennessee? It was one of the sheriff's men. The rebels quickly gained the initiative.

Granted. I dont see any strong reason why the rebels would ALWAYS get it if that situation occurred again. Seemed like a stroke of luck that they organised faster than the army happened to. Initiative is a funny thing.

Statistically that was not very successful. Studies have shown that many people were turned off by these efforts and the few that followed them quickly lost interest as casualties started increasing in our wars.

That really was not because of the propaganda. That was more because of the Communists actions. Sure they were used as propaganda tools but the killing fields did far more to turn Americans than McCarthyism.

And how did Americans learn of communist actions? The news methinks. The media. Its true that the communist states did dig their own graves but what was easy was:

Taking a negative action or mistake.
Assigning a broad label to it.
Instilling all the anger and frustration of a conflict into a single ideal.
Making an us vs them mentallity.

If you do something arguable awful even by accident the media will have a field day about it.

EDIT: Sorry you seem to be arguing two HUGE posts at once. Dont worry about mine. Get back to it later if you want. Ill duck out of the discussion for a bit so you dont get over worked with replies.

Frission:
I don't know, it seems that you think "the revolution" will be just a small guerrilla movement in Texas.

Where do you get that idea?

Most likely the rebels will start out as a series of groups (possibly several in Texas). However, Texas is not the only state where people would get pissed off. From the people I have seen Idaho is a powder keg.

It might work, since a small enough fighting force can try to go through without thinking too much about logistics, but the same strategy of scavenging doesn't work for a full on rebel army.

It has worked for centuries. Before the advent of modern logistics most armies lived off of the land to some extent. Obviously if you are talking about an army in the hundreds of thousands in one place then it would be an issue. But adding 10,000 mouths in an area that can already feed a couple million Americans then it is not really an issue. Even if we go to the modern period, von Lettow's army of 10,000 functioned without ANY base of supply for 3 years. They simply stole from their enemies.

The problem then is that the military actually does have military bases out of Texas.

Bases that can be destroyed. As one particular terrorist has proven the initiative still matters in a military base.

Not to mention, that the United States Military isn't a foreign army and all of their gear is right in the country

Yes, it is right in country. Over there in California (or similar). It is not all in the same place which means that logistically it is problematic to supply US bases when your territory is in rebellion. A problem that becomes greater as time goes on. Clockmaker keeps mentioning the use of support units. Eventually you will need more ammo and explosives. Especially if you plan on blowing up every sniper in the entire US.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Are you and Darc talking about just staying at home and resisting, or going on a full on war march to the capitol? They sort of mean two different things.

It could be either. There are people who live in Washington DC too.

I personally would prefer to just separate from the US government if they do something that cause me to rebel. The people in Washington DC can overthrow the government since they are right there. Leave me and mine alone.

the clockmaker:
You are presupposing that Supplies need to get from point A (q-store/supply dump) to points B C D E F etc (operational areas). What actually happens is Supplies go from point A1(supply dump) to A2 (operational area) B1 to B2 C1 to C2 and so on and so forth. Still a huge task, but it is being undertaken by what is probably the second largest organised entity on the planet.

A huge job that is made very complicated by the fact that people are trying to stop you.

BTW nice evasion. In no way shape or form did I imply either scenario because both scenarios lead to the same problem.

Which is a bad assumption. Again, stop assuming that the entire bloody country is going to side with you.

Where did I say that? In fact, I have stated at several points that people from New York will not want to die in order to keep Texas from leaving (statement implies that NY did not rebel).

EOD is explosive ordinance disposal, not just CIED work. if you are destroying supplies (which will include explosive ordinance you will need to be able to conduct EOD

And what did we ever do before EOD units existed?

Not much training needed for simple disposal.

Using explosives that you magically have and magically managed to transport in sufficient quantity to where they are needed.

Using explosives that are magically available everywhere because we are in a technologically advanced society that uses those kinds of materials on a regular basis.

talking to someone who thinks that a revolution is immune to every clusterfuck that any armed force suffers is tiresome

Did I say that? Citation please. Also, please stop making shit up.

Ladies and gentlemen, having found strongpointing a road beyond his forces capability, Farson now wants to move mountains instead. I can see the Army coming up to the destroyed building in the middle of the road and saying
'shit, foiled again, I sure wish we had engineers in this army, oh well'

There is a box for a reason, it is because combat is a very fine line between 'this will work', and 'this will get everyone of your friends killed'. It is not an environment conducive to 'shit why don't we try this?'

Have you ever actually been in some of these mountainous states? I was in West Virginia and the highway went right in between two mountains. Similar in Colorado and other states.

How do you collapse a portion of the mountain? Drill a deep hole and lower in an explosive (like say, a pound of gun powder) and set it off. Does that sound difficult? No. And it can be done all over the place.

BTW you want to get the engineers out for every single instance of this happening in order to spend several hours or days to clean up the mess. That sounds pretty irritating. Also very draining if a few snipers decide to kill a couple of your specialists every single time. You really do not get how this kind of war works do you?

That's what logistics are. The stuff you have and the stuff you use to transport it with. Saying 'I will have this stuff', is relying on the magical logistics fairy.

We do have this stuff. Saying that the US has lots of food is a statement of fact. Logistics officers regularly buy stuff in local markets when it is available.

Plus, Vehicles are big, hot and loud, they show up nice when the supporting elements come to support the element that you are attacking.

So we are going to be transporting supplies while we are attacking? You really do not get how this works.

With a horrific loss ratio in terms of men and materiel on the part of the attacking force.

Good thing then that the US military will be the attacking force.

And you are again, just assuming that these people will pick up arms for you.

Why don't you look at the liberty movement and see the number of soldiers that have joined.

No, their job is to interdict command elements and attrit insurgent supplies/manpower while the rest of the force comes to bear.

Which you are going to know by magic.

Also, you seem to think that a rebel force will be unified. Poor assumption.

Because, as I led Xdarc through the pro-rebellion side has consistently overestimated the size of their own force

Because you know how big this theoretical force will be.

Imagine a scale, from Tim Mcveigh, to george washington, both of these were rebels, both of these decided that the current government had to go, this tells us that a rebellion can be just one nutcase, it is not a huge number of people.

The American revolution had the support of around 1/3rd of the population of the colonies. That is about 800k people out of a population of 2.5 million.

Also, WTF? George Washington was not even the principle rebel. Dear god, you have Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and on and you choose George Washington. Jesus.

A government does not just flip a switch and say 'yo, we are evil now' it is a gradual change of well intentioned policies that leads to oppression.

And yet, "Spot Lincoln" suddenly decided to torture American citizens out of fear that they will rebel.

There is no reason for it to be gradual.

people have a different definition of what oppression is and so deem the government hostile at differing points. Therefore, the beginnings of an insurgency tend to be a comparatively small amount of people unless facing an alien threat.

Or, unless the oppression is overt enough.

They are police/intelligence professionals

Which will figure everything out overnight because, magic.

He then sees John, Bill and all the rest conducting meetings, calls in a swat team for a friendly chat and the rest is history.

Except that is one group out of hundreds if not thousands. And of course you are assuming it will happen. Small towns are different than a city.

All US strikes are taken on one assumption 'it is better for a Non-american to die than to risk the life of an american' So to assume that pattern would continue is problematic.

So you are saying that the US military will not kill ANY civilians in its efforts? A poor assumption to make.

In addition, think of how this is going to play in the media, you won't be brave freedom fighters, you will be cowards hiding behind schoolchildren.

Yes, see how well that demonization has worked for Obama.

I'm sorry, but where you not just whinging that I asked you to read this thread. Do you have no self awareness.

I do. YOU have been involved from the beginning. I just got back from vacation and have NOT kept up with this thread (others yes but not this one). YOU should know, I have no reason to.

'you did not mention training (which would be irrelevant anyway),' If you regret what you have said, retract, don't claim that I made it up.

You did make it up. Sorry, but you do not have the right to put your own spin on a statement and say that that was what I meant.

It is fucking not, fetishing the military is not the same as being trained. the DPRK is a militized society, Israel is, the US is not.

The US is a militaristic society by every definition known to man AND that includes Vagts' definition.

BTW- have you ever been to a 3-gun match? That is training.

False, it graduates its level of force as the threat increases, meaning that it keeps pace with your insurgency. You are trying to win a race with someone who is faster than you and who has a head start.

So you are arguing that the military has enough resources and knowledge to increase pressure across the entire country whenever it wants exactly how much it needs to.

You are the classic example of Hull's argument. You would have made a great general under the Kaiserreich but in modern terms you are hopelessly antiquated (actually even then since those generals failed).

HA no. You think you can pull a functioning medical system or robust comms network from nowhere?

No, from the medical supply store down the road and the academy across the street. Or, if I am back home, I already have a fully functioning radio set that we use to coordinate wild pig hunts. Plus, my great-uncle was a doctor back in the day and he used old fashioned equipment that is still in storage.

You have the fancy stuff. Do not assume we cannot make due.

You are demanding that I track down, and at least parse your books and then claiming that that is less effort than scrolling to the bottom of the page, clicking 10 and looking for my name? Are you insane or just that determined to die on a pointless hill.

Did I say that? Stop making shit up.

I told you exactly what to look for. You gave me vague directions.

Now, while the effective range for an aimed shot from the M4 is 300 meters, what do you think the range for a squad engagement is? (hint, there is a certain amount of lining up)

500 meters or greater in 52% of engagements in Afghanistan.

nice evasion.

Back at you.

No, effectiveness of a fighting force degrades as supplies dwindle.

Which was not the point you were making. I was talking about the beginning (as where you) now you are switching goal posts and are talking about the middle phase.

one weeks supply in their houses? What happens week 2, or week three?

We are talking about the beginning phase as you well know. Stop playing dumb. You and I both know that these kinds of operations occur in phases. Stop skipping around and trying to combine phases.

yeah, because the military would never think to surveil natural water points

Yeah, because there are that many soldiers and that much equipment in the US military.

No, people have clothes that they can wear when going to the shops, or that look good. Warm clothes war ones that you can spend the night in in below freezing, that aren't bright orange or white, that don't rustle are somewhat rarer.

Lucky you change the color of your clothing.

Which needs to be kept out of the wet, which can't be left in the sun all day, which needs to be appropriate for the rest of your group (imagine how awkward it would be to show up with 5.56 and everyone else needed 7.62), which needs to be transported and cached, which will be attrited by the opposing force.

Ammo is not that fragile. Also, still available in large numbers. Love the evasion.

Which need to be maintained and transported, which will be targeted and thus will suffer attrition.

More evasions.

I'm sorry, coordination of a fighting force is not difficult? Are you being serious.

It has been done for thousands of years. If we ignore all of your fancy shit then it becomes easier.

also, you keep assuming that you have time.

Better assumption than yours. After all, knowledge fairies are rather rare.

The job of an XO is not supply distribution, it is managing the people who actually know how to do that. Essentially I have asked if you are a chef, and you have said 'no, but I know someone who used to manage a restaurant 50 years ago.

So let me get this straight, an XO becomes an XO without ever being in another job. Cool.

you keep assuming that everyone with a gun would be on your side.

A hundred men spread across the US would make your life hell. Now try a thousand. 10 thousand. And on.

In addition, here is what you do, you put a section (sorry squad, differing terminologies) on patrol, the keep going until someone is dumb enough to shoot at them. Attempt to engage using fire and movement, if that does not work you will have an element tasked to hit anything beyond their capability. Once the threat is dealt with, continue the patrol until someone is dumb enough to shoot at you...

Which you do for every single sniper in country. You will fast run out of supplies and your base of supply is in rebellion.

A good shot does not a sniper make.

Luckily then that most of those shooters are also hunts and a few of them were even military snipers.

the clockmaker:

Was that so goddamn hard?

If you want to work out the manning of your insurgency, you're going to have to aim a bit lower than tens of millions

Millions still outnumber your army. Hundreds of thousands of combat effectives outnumber your combat effectives.

First off, how many people in your nation are physically non-disabled. (this does not include people with things that will keep them from sustained operations, like the obese, diabetics, epileptics, people that cannot be relied upon to act in that crucial moment)

And they become the "tail" of the organization.

Next, how many of those are physically fit and can actually navigate terrain in a high-intensisty situation. Sure you can get a thin bloke and he'll look cool carrying his tricked out armalite, but can he actually conduct fire an movement, or can he actually move stealthily (which is a lot more physically demanding than normal movement) when trained personnel are looking for him

More "tail".

Next, you need people who are politically active enough that they give a damn about the issue spectrum that you are active in. Most people, so long as it doesn't harm their job are not going to care about say, the right seize government spending records.

Or, the US government does something that gets everyone riled up.

Next, they need to be politically aligned with you. More on this later

Nope. See Vietnam.

Next, they need to be politically radicalised like you. More people will stamp and shout and wave signs than will ever be willing to actually bring the system down. Look at occupy, how many of those people are still actively continuing the 'struggle' and all they had to do was stay in one place

You make the very poor assumption that the US government has not done anything to rally the people.

Next they have to have access to a weapon, supply and ammo as well as the ability to maintain the weapon in the field. This is not the same thing as maintaining the weapon at home and you need to keep them in supply.

Available in the US.

Next they need to be willing to kill or die in pursuit of their radical beliefs, many will say that they are, but not many actually are.

You would be surprised what people will do in self defense.

Next they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and destroy their own infrastructure.

Sounds like what your soldiers are going through. Except the soldiers are going to be defending the government who caused the rebellion in the first place. I wonder whose moral will be higher.

BTW these kinds of tactics tend to build up the moral of the defenders.

Next you need leaders to organize the whole thing, and they don't just pop out of thin air. PS-don't suggest your self for this.

They already exist. You make the very poor assumption that new groups have to be formed instead of old groups simply being reused.

Next you need people who will not accept minor concessions as reasons to end the insurgency. Say, by way of example, you went to fight because the government legislated that every firearm you owned had to be registered with the federal government. By way of some miracle you got some sort of fighting force together and the government was worried enough to say 'okay, register it with your local police station who will be legally bound to keep it private from any higher level of authority unless that weapon is used in a crime' from there 90% of your people claim victory and go home, leaving you out in the cold.

So you already know the reason for the insurgency is the governments fault and yet you think that your army will stay loyal.

Then you have the fact that even though insurgents can do damage to conventional forces, they do so at great cost to themselves, often losing between 5/10 men for every experienced soldier they manage to kill.

In US wars but not in all wars. Von Lettow is the great example.

Then there is the fact that the method of insurgency that you talk about, referencing the Boston bombings, will drive more and more people into the arms of the government.

Except that you have already admitted that the US government fired the first shot.

Also, there is no reason why a rebel group must target civilians.

Then you have the fact that The US and her allies have been improving their counter-insurgency capabilities for the past decade.

And yet they still cannot win.

Then you have the fact that there is no first order power that would want the insurgents to take power, it goes against the interests of everybody for the US administration to fall.

Because all other government will support the US no matter what atrocities the government performs.

Then you have... So so many other factors as to why this is insane.

Many factors that only theoretically exist because you only think about insurgency in the way it has been done by ONE subset of groups. I told you to expand but no.

A US insurgency does not, in any way shape or form have any basis in reality.

In your opinion but history is on my side.

I was reluctant to post it again as people reading this thread should not have to read the same words four times over to save those too lazy to read the very same page they posted on. I only do so now to stop your endless complaining.

So take another second and spoil the post. Do you ever stop whining?

Mentioning that someone else said something that you refuse to elaborate upon does not prove your position. To claim so is flat out lunacy.

Let me put it to you simply, I stated exactly what those works claimed. I even cited them. Do not get pissy at me because you are wrong.

BiscuitTrouser:
Living off the land is a disadvantage period.

And yet it can and has been done.

You cant forage anti biotics without stealing or buying thats for sure.

Or recruiting.

You may be a hunter. You cant assume everyone else is.

In my area? It is a safe assumption.

Did some reading there. Ironically the boast that he managed to forage with 10'000 people is a little circular. I read about him and it seems he pretty much rode the first victory by capturing and holding a recently well stocked outpost. For which he needed a lot of men to make said capture possible. If youre intending to operate with fewer men than that capturing supplies will be harder since hit and run attacks tend to be the tactics of smaller forces. And hit and run doesnt really lend itself to capturing and holding.

He did not hold the territory. He captured it and left (sometimes burning supplies because he could not carry it all).

10,000 men really is not that much for a major rebellion.

You should remember that Von Lettow commanded an established army before he outfitted them into a guerilla unit.

And a rebel army in the US will likely have enough supplies to establish itself before beginning offensive operations.

They were not ragtag.

Yes they were. This is a colonial force made up mostly of black soldiers who were using antiquated equipment.

They were not untested.

Yes they were. The vast majority of those "soldiers" were police or reservists prior to the war.

I wouldnt expect you to be able to reproduce the "Greatest guerilla action ever recorded" when it was done with a skilled and experienced commander using trained and battle hardened troops with whatever leader YOU can muster and some untested militia who are being thrust into a newly formed chain of command. Simply put relying on being as good as one of the greatest tacticians of the age is a little... presumptuous. Thats like saying I could reproduce the battle of the 300 with some pointy sticks and some dudes i picked up down at the gym.

Reproduce? No. But it is definitely possible.

You know where you live. You know your area. Are you going to wait for the invitation? Are YOU going to start it? Im asking you personally. You live either in a city or a country side and have a specific situation. Im asking you how you intend to join or recruit, if you decide to lead it, without being spotted.

Personally, it varies. There is no single answer. If I am in my home town and I get 50 people together then I can be pretty sure that the entire town is behind me and I do not need to worry about traitors (because they would effectively be killing about 30 relatives by outing the rebels). But if I am in a city then my assumptions change.

What did the government do to cause the rebellion? If it is one thing I can recruit from one pool. If it is another thing then I might have to do a bit more direct recruiting.

I cannot tell you exact anything without an exact scenario. I recommended that book because it outlined exact scenarios and how they went about recruiting and keeping secrets (one of his best friends was also Vietcong but he did not know until years later). It all depends.

If you intend to secede why wouldnt they just annex you? If YOU intend to hold any large area land you need to take SOME land within it from those who disagree or military strongholds inside the area you wish to become independent.

Or not. Why is it necessary?

It would be political suicide for the government to be the aggressor

And yet, it happens on a regular basis. Do not expect governments to act rationally.

Granted. I dont see any strong reason why the rebels would ALWAYS get it if that situation occurred again. Seemed like a stroke of luck that they organised faster than the army happened to. Initiative is a funny thing.

Not luck. They used their pre-existing social order and organized themselves before word could get all the way up the chain of command to allow anything to be done. Massive organizations have an insane level of bureaucratic inertia and prevents them from reacting quickly.

And how did Americans learn of communist actions? The news methinks. The media. Its true that the communist states did dig their own graves but what was easy was:

Taking a negative action or mistake.
Assigning a broad label to it.
Instilling all the anger and frustration of a conflict into a single ideal.
Making an us vs them mentallity.

If you do something arguable awful even by accident the media will have a field day about it.

And that was not direct US government propaganda. The US government does not technically control the media (yet).

EDIT: Sorry you seem to be arguing two HUGE posts at once. Dont worry about mine. Get back to it later if you want. Ill duck out of the discussion for a bit so you dont get over worked with replies.

It is fine.

Skeleon:

Zef Otter:
Honestly people who wants a rebellion don't know what really going to happen if they do it. Like people why will recruit will use this to "settle scores" with people they have a beef with and lots of people will die between the crossfire. Then this will split people into factions with very different agendas . If they defeat the government then they will turn on each other next and even more people will die. If people think this will be clean then they are mistaken.

That's a good point. We can expect a lot of "you are not a true patriot, die"-vigilantism, not just against loyal citizens but also between rebel groups and individuals, if push comes to shove, both based on ideological differences and more simple, more personal, more basic conflicts, where such reasons will be used as flimsy justifications.

In truth, I believe that IF (and thats a 100 mile high IF) anything happens in the US, it will be violent militias killing those who disagree with them for even the most insignficant slight. And the reason is because its already happened once in my state.

In short, they wanted to let the citizens of the state vote for weather they would allow slaves or ban them, and people from both sides came pouring into the state to make it go thier way. However, the election go called into dispute when it was found that citizens from Missouri had illegally voted that we would be slave-state. This resulted in 2 capitals at the same time (Free-State in Lawerance, Pro-Slave in Lecompton) both of which saying they were the "real" government. Eventually it hit a boiling point and pro/anti-slavery militias started forming to drive the other out. They smuggled in weapons (EDIT: Anti-slavery[1] had the famous "Beecher Bible" Rifles, where a church hid the guns under bibles and the border guards wouldnt search it "because bibles") and started fighting the other sides, and even shooting those who took no sides and just wanted to make a living. The military, fearing they may loss thier forts to these militias, shut the gates, pointed thier guns out, and said "ANYONE who comes close WILL be shot" and the police were too busy fighting for thier lives to even enforce basic laws. The militias operated with immunity, sacking towns, burning down farms, killing anyone who was against them (even if that meant "I have no opinion"), there was even one of the only mass killings in Kansas history at a Pottowattomie Creek farmstead. Americas First Terrorist/Freedom Fighter John Brown and some other men dragged 5 men from thier homes and beheaded them with broadswords. Eventually, we entered the Union as a Free State (3 months before South Carolina succeeded), but not before hundreds had been killed, the city of Lawerence had been burned, and violence continued into the Civil War.

This is what I would see happening IF something happened. The military and police stay out of it for fear it would make the situation worse, and pro/anti-(insert the issue here) militias attacking everyone else and then it eventually dies down as moderate voices finally break through and convince both sides to have peace.

[1] Derp, I said Pro-Slave. The Beecher Family were some of the most prominiate abolitionist in the country during that time

I agree with BOOM on the somewhat off-topic discussion going on now. A lot of people are using Vietnam as an example, but I think Northern Ireland is much more comparable. And what happened was pretty much exactly what BOOM described, although the police and military most definitely got involved. Around 90% of the violence was carried out by the paramilitaries. Areas effectively fell under their control, and they enforced their rules brutally (ever heard of kneecapping?).

It's an academic question anyway, there's not going to be any kind of serious insurgency in the USA any time soon, but still.

BOOM headshot65:
In truth, I believe that IF (and thats a 100 mile high IF) anything happens in the US, it will be violent militias killing those who disagree with them for even the most insignficant slight. And the reason is because its already happened once in my state.

In short, they wanted to let the citizens of the state vote for weather they would allow slaves or ban them, and people from both sides came pouring into the state to make it go thier way. However, the election go called into dispute when it was found that citizens from Missouri had illegally voted that we would be slave-state. This resulted in 2 capitals at the same time (Free-State in Lawerance, Pro-Slave in Lecompton) both of which saying they were the "real" government. Eventually it hit a boiling point and pro/anti-slavery militias started forming to drive the other out. They smuggled in weapons (pro-slavery had the famous "Beecher Bible" Rifles, where a church hid the guns under bibles and the border guards wouldnt search it "because bibles") and started fighting the other sides, and even shooting those who took no sides and just wanted to make a living. The military, fearing they may loss thier forts to these militias, shut the gates, pointed thier guns out, and said "ANYONE who comes close WILL be shot" and the police were too busy fighting for thier lives to even enforce basic laws. The militias operated with immunity, sacking towns, burning down farms, killing anyone who was against them (even if that meant "I have no opinion"), there was even one of the only mass killings in Kansas history at a Pottowattomie Creek farmstead. Americas First Terrorist/Freedom Fighter John Brown and some other men dragged 5 men from thier homes and beheaded them with broadswords. Eventually, we entered the Union as a Free State (3 months before South Carolina succeeded), but not before hundreds had been killed, the city of Lawerence had been burned, and violence continued into the Civil War.

This is what I would see happening IF something happened. The military and police stay out of it for fear it would make the situation worse, and pro/anti-(insert the issue here) militias attacking everyone else and then it eventually dies down as moderate voices finally break through and convince both sides to have peace.

On the other hand, that big IF requires too many hoops to jump through, the big one being that the US didn't have a particularly effective fighting force until WWI (The Civil War was essentially people who barely knew how to shoot given the equivalent of assault rifles thanks to advances in gun design, particularly rifling and clambering mechanisms such as in the Winchester repeater), while today's American police forces and HRTs can pretty much handle anything that isn't a tank or areal weapons platform (drone, attack helicopter, etc.).

At most, such a rebellion may take over a small town for a few days if they're smart enough to not start killing people, after which they would either surrender or die via the suicide by cop method. If they start killing people, all bets are off and the authorities would have to try to make sure at least a few survive in order to interrogate.

If I saw feds rounding up people in my city and taking them to camps, I'm pretty sure I would get whoever I could to go out with me in the middle of the night and burn some shit down; military installations, government buildings, refineries, power plants, whatever we could get away with.

I don't think people need to hold territory or have an organizational structure or chain of command to accomplish that; it happens to be a pretty common motif throughout history. It's kinda hard to price that in to the equation, but potentially a lot of infrastructure could end up burnt to a crisp before the feds have a chance to use it.

xDarc:
If I saw feds rounding up people in my city and taking them to camps, I'm pretty sure I would get whoever I could to go out with me in the middle of the night and burn some shit down; military installations, government buildings, refineries, power plants, whatever we could get away with.

Or what is more likely is the same reaction to the last time it happened and you would not do anything because either you felt the people deserved it, you had been convinced by outside sources (be it the government or anti-government radio-hosts), or were just too scared to speak out/act against the majority of public opinion.

A genuine question that has just occurred to me reading through the last few replies: What if it were not the "feds" rounding people up, but rather a bunch of armed citizens who were demanding the secession of the state to force the dissolution of the Federal Government (and they are rounding up "pro-government/no-opinion" people, who have not actually done anything wrong but just disagree with the movement, and sending them to camps)? Would you still take up arms against them or would you either leave it for the authorities, or even join in yourself?

There is a lot of talk of rebellion against the "tyrannical government", but I am more interested in what those who are more "pro-revolution" would do after any potential initial revolution and it turns out the new governing system is less democratic than the last (despite possibly being in-tune with their political views).

xDarc:
If I saw feds rounding up people in my city and taking them to camps, I'm pretty sure I would get whoever I could to go out with me in the middle of the night and burn some shit down; military installations, government buildings, refineries, power plants, whatever we could get away with.

If the government gets abusive enough, then a rebellion is justified. If the government starts rounding up my neighbors and sending them to camps then I would probably feel I had no choice but to take up weapons and fight it.

On the other hand, if instead you have a few 'rebels' deciding to round up gay people and execute them then I will be overjoyed when the government comes in and kills the rebels.

For the unaligned people it will come down to which side acts like lunatics and thus deserves to be put down. Even if you agree with the rebels' grievances, their methods might make you decide that they do not deserve your support.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked