The U.S. Military vs. the Militias: Who Would Really Win?

Now if we are going to have a Second American Civil War who would win? The Belligerents are the Feds vs the Militia

Federal Advantages:

Of course, the government of the United States has other advantages that it would bring to a war with the militias. Unlike in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers fighting a guerilla war against militia insurgents would speak the same language as the local population, understand its culture and generally be of the same religious persuasion. In addition, the federal government has significant intelligence gathering capabilities (and not just military intelligence capabilities, either; the FBI is excellent at this as well) and talented personnel who could infiltrate militia groups. The federal government also has the ability to hire the mercenaries of companies like Xe Services – formerly Blackwater, of course – if they need additional manpower. Also, it is unlikely that the militias would find any major state sponsors for their insurgency. Too many other countries are either allied with the United States, dependent upon American support or owed too much money by us for them to support the overthrow of the American government. Even if an Iran or a North Korea wanted to sponsor the insurgents, would the insurgents really take help from a hated Marxist and a despised Islamic regime? I could be wrong, but I doubt they would if they had any other means of supporting themselves.

Militia Advantage:

With the asymmetrical nature of guerilla warfare, the militias would not be without advantages too. Chief among these is the fact that they would likely be decentralized, autonomous military forces. As we’ve seen with the Tea Party and its attendant militias up to now, there is nobody really in charge at the top. There are national figures like Sarah Palin who command the respect of the movement, and there are noticeable Republican attempts to co-opt the movement, but so far there is no formal national leadership. The groups are free to set their own course. If this pattern was to continue in a war it would be hard for the militias to coordinate a cohesive national strategy, but it would also be difficult for the federal government, which would have to dismantle or defeat each individual group.

If you want to see more here is the source:

blogs.alternet.org...

reply to post by starwarsisreal


Technically it would be the third civil war on American soil. The War Of Independence was the first civil was followed by the war between the north and south.

www.bbc.co.uk...

What little in the way of militias are left are known to the federal government. Many of them are infiltrated as well. IF and I do mean IF something like this were to happen it would be an unmitigated disaster from which the nation might never recover from.

Oh and the military in conjunction with the intel agencies etc would positively WRECK any opposition that tried to fight them head on.! Keep in mind the fedayin and Iraqi insurgency had a massive stash of military grade weaponry to start with and were actively receiving other stocks from outside the conflict zone on a daily basis. Do you really think anyone would arm an American insurgency?

Another civil war is absolutely impossible and this has been discussed many times. The country is to far mixed with very little loyalty to any side on anything.

Basically there is no issue potent enough to get enough people to have a civil war. Sure people are upset and angry with the government but nowhere near ready to take up arms.

And where would they fight? How would they organize? Just too many impossibility's for it to ever happen.

reply to post by alldaylong


But at that time the rebs are considered Americans. And they never refer themselves as British. American Civil War in the other hand are Americans against Americans.

reply to post by roguetechie


However if you read the link the US military are pretty much spread thin due many of them based overseas

The militias would win, every single time.

There hasn't been a successful war won against insurgency in the history of mankind.

France - insurgencies and popular uprising won the revolutuion
America - insurgencies won in the revolutionary war
Russia - insurgencies and popular uprising won the revolution
France - insurgencies caused the Germans all sorts of problems, and had major effect against heavy numbers
Vietnam - insurgencies won
Afghanistan - insurgencies beat Russians, insurgencies will beat the Americans
Iraq - insurgencies will probably win in the end

In almost every single historical instance where there was an insurgency against a regular army, the insurgents won.

The rules of war can't be applied to insurgents and militias, they are generally decentralized command structures with short supply lines.

It would depend on who's side Chuck Norris was on.
Sorry, had to throw that out there.

reply to post by babybunnies


You may want to read a bit more history before you make this claim. I would suggest the history of the British Isles would be a very good place to start.

reply to post by kro32


Well My point is not to say it's going to happen. I'm just asking the opinion of every one on what they think about this because many of my friends argued among themselves over this.

who has the drones ?

right

lol

reply to post by babybunnies


how can the insurgents outlast the military....on it's own soil ?

that's all an insurgency can hope for, the make it hurt so much the superior force.....goes home

pretty poor analogy

reply to post by starwarsisreal


The first nine Presidents of America from George Washington to William Henry Harrison where all born as BRITISH SUBJECTS. Please research. Therefore the war of independence was British subjects fighting British subjects thus making it a civil war.

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by starwarsisreal

 

The first nine Presidents of America from George Washington to William Henry Harrison where all born as BRITISH SUBJECTS. Please research. Therefore the war of independence was British subjects fighting British subjects thus making it a civil war.

um no

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

reply to post by babybunnies


Incorrect.

Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq are limited wars with the full force of the US military not being brought to bear on the enemy.

As for successful counter-insurgency campaigns: (Colonial power or victor noted in parenthesis)

Chad (France)
Algeria (France)
Ivory Coast (France)
Kashmir (India)
Phillipines
East Timor (Indonesia)
Peru

Also the goal of the insurgent is not to defeat the military but rather to win popular/political support and force changes in governmental structure and/or alignment.

reply to post by starwarsisreal

The U.S. Military vs. the Militias: Who Would Really Win?,

The winners ultimately would be the people that control the water and food distribution,

do you know how to stop a tank? or how to let a train run off the rails? or how to build a bomb?

most dont and so the military will always outnumber the militias...

a very good german read is "Der totale Widerstand" by Major von Dach...i havent found anything comperable, its a guide to start a civil war, written by a swiss general with ALL!!! the details you need to know, i have seen tonns of books in this field but this is the master piece:
www.scribd.com...

and this: Ecodefense: A_Field_Guide_to_Monkeywrenching - some very intristing details and techniques...crazy american enviormental people ^_^
theanarchistlibrary.org...

and of course the dozent of cia guids and manuals and other book i dont want to discuss here or the black helicopter is coming again

reply to post by starwarsisreal


Seriously? Really? I was in the military for a good number of years. And but for an isolated pocket or two where the militias are hiding in caves, the military would win in about 8 hours or less.

It is utterly laughable that people think their guns are going to save them or that the Government is the LEAST bit worried. And these militias are about as important and as much of a threat as Civil War re-enactments.

Make NO mistake. If the military so decides, it is over.

Militias, Oath Keepers, Guns, etc. WHAT a joke. Wanna do something? Stop fighting each other and doing silly sh** like birth certificate investigation. Band together, demand paper balloting, and everyone show up at the ballot box. Turn off ALL "news entertainment". And EDUCATE yourself. Stop thinking life is one bumper-sticker slogan after another.

But, people won't. They will keep playing Army and think they are bad-a$$.

reply to post by starwarsisreal


well first, if the government issued an order for the military to attack US civilians, there would be an instant coupe within the military ranks. Some may follow the orders, others would not. High ranking military officials would refuse the orders and take many soldiers with them.

If even 3/4 of the military were left to assault civilians, they would be incredibly out numbered and would eventually lose.
At that point, the government officials who ordered the illegal attacks would be tried for treason.

reply to post by jfj123

there would be an instant coupe within the military ranks

thats what you hope for but not reality...just look at syria and stuff, its (not) happening right now...