I see this posted a lot, and I'm completely baffled as well as bemused by the shortsightedness of members who claim that the "Free Peoples of the USA"
could win an armed conflict against the US government gone full tyrant mode.
Why do they think this?
It could win a civil war easily. Here's why.
Dirty bombs, smallpox & biological warfare
Russia and the USA are the only countries in the world who keep live samples of Smallpox (despite international outcries for them to be destroyed) and
they aren't there just for show. I imagine that this, along with any other lovely they have waiting in a lab to unleash on the world would be put to
full effect in the case of civil war.
Say, a particularly virulent strain of the Spanish Flu, airborne Ebola, Cholera introduced to all major rivers. Any of these, let alone all of them
would completely decimate any effective fighting force in a week and people would run to the government in droves for a cure.
Another surprise for the newly formed revolution would be tactical nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. Radiation poisoning is a bitch and don't think for
a second that they wouldn't be used. Historically in conventional war, sides rarely employ chemical weapons because of fear that the enemy will do the
same. It's almost a gentlemen's agreement.
Against a civilian army? What do they have to escalate with or retaliate against a biochem attack? Disease runs rampant while nuclear material would
be exploded in dirty bombs in order to irradiate anywhere they don't want you going, such as, any major city or entire state they no longer control,
national parks/forests where people may try and hide from satellites etc.
Your bowling buddies & target thumpers at the gun club, a militia does not make.
Assuming 100% of the population was onboard for an armed revolution (And let's be honest, they wouldn't) out of the 313,000,000 US citizens, how many
are fit for combat? Well, 13% are over 65. 23.17% are under 18 and 35% of adults are obese with 65% being overweight or obese.
I'm well aware than a certain % of over 65's and under 18's are also obese so I will assume that a third of obese people are in these age groups.
That makes for 60% of the population being unfit for combat. about 80% if you think that overweight people are "fit for combat" which I personally
don't and it doesn't count the number of cripples. Of those left, how many are able fit, able bodied and willing to fight?
And those people who don't fit the bill don't "disappear", they need to be fed, protected etc etc etc, and with no power, water (Remember; cholera) no
supply chains (food) (read air superiority) how will you support that many people? These are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers - the rebellion won't
leave them behind in potential danger to go fight a war.
The majority of Americans aren't used to everyone dieing around them and with their air conditioned studio apartments, aren't used to harsh
conditions. Do you think they could remain an effective fighting force when stripped of every creature comfort?
Additionally, almost every American lacks basic survival skills and the land simply cannot support that many people. People would get hungry.
Desperate. The irradiated, hungry and disease ridden rebellion would fight itself more than anyone else and it would quickly fall apart under its own
weight. More people, sick and hungry would be throwing in the towel.
Showing the servicemen and women that the rebellion is a diseased rabble tearing itself apart who need to be saved from themselves would be all the
reasoning needed to get "G.I. Joe" to fire on other Americans. Not to mention UN "Peacekeepers" who would be happy to oblige too.
But if you wanted to go right ahead with your G.O.O.D bags and M16 and march straight on the white house... Read on to find out why that would fail
When Hitler ordered the invasion of France his general staff were absolutely certain that they were going to lose and that it was a death warrant for
them and their troops. Most of them weren't Nazis and they were more ready to turn their armies around and march them towards Berlin instead of Paris.
Why didn't they?
Hitler and Goring were very, very clever and careful in making the Luftwaffe the "Nazi Party" wing of the army, and it's no coincidence that they not
only held all the aircraft along with the best and loyalist born and bred Nazis in all of Germany, but they also held all the anti aircraft
Because with unrivaled air superiority you control the war and completely remove the enemy's ability to function as an organised force. The Luftwaffe
even though crushingly outnumbered - holding all of the planes and anti-aircraft would have had been able to destroy the wehrmacht as an effective
fighting force by the time it arrived in Berlin. And this was in 1940.
And believe me, with the advent of Infrared satellites, helicopters and AC-130 gun ships, predator drones and other advances in close air support the
USAF have been very wise to invest in the "Free People's Militia of the USA"'s chances just got that little bit dimmer.
Raise your hand if you own enough man-portable surface to air missiles to even make a single aircraft run out of flares. No one? Oh dear.
You would have no supply chains, no base of operations, no massed formations, nothing. Which leads me onto...
Guerrilla warfare won't work
I see this one thrown around a lot. How a group of well-prepared Rambos would use hit and run tactics to bring the evil government to its knees. You
Well, it makes a good movie but there's a lot of problems with this. I've already mentioned irradiating areas via dirty bombs, infrared satellites
combined with predator drones & other close air support which should already put this one to bed, but there's something else worth mentioning too.
What would you shoot at?
The Man! Sitting comfortable 2 kilometers underground, on an oil rig, on an aircraft carrier or in the air, he's quite safe from you.
Bases? These would be watched like hawks by eyes in the sky and have huge exclusion zones. Good luck getting close.
Convoys of armoured vehicles? Good job Average Joe has the advanced & expensive armour piercing weapons necessary to do the job properly. IED's are a
potential of course however if they started to be used in number the it would lead to the use of...
Air supply chains. I hope you can shoot down a helicopter or cargo plane with your Smith & Wesson.
A US government hellbent on winning a war, an actual war for existence, not a "hearts and minds" war, would pull out all the stops, and do anything to
win. Successful examples of resistance from Vietnam and the middle-east are redundant because of the abhorrence with which the blatant and
indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians is regarded in the West and doing so would cause a major outcry and the war would lose support.
Simply put, if the US government really, really wanted to win the war in Afghanistan through annihilation, not caring what the world thought of it or
any of its other war goals, it could. And it could win a domestic war under the same terms with little problem.
If anyone wants a civil war, it's the US government. They could win it easily and afterwards they could impose whatever conditions they like on the
survivors. If you want to fight, do it now in the polling booths rather than dying in the streets
edit on 24-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no