Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

page: 1
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+31 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   
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 too.

Air superiority
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 weapons.

Why?

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 show'em!

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.

Conclusion

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 reason given)



+21 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


I'ts moronic drivel from people that have more guns than they have IQ points.

The same people will argue about all our soldiers getting killed in [insert name of foreign country here], but they want to have these same soldiers lined up in their crosshairs?

Any civil war on American soil would also result in a number of opportunist nations stepping in to "help".
Many a faction would even willfully invite said "help"; entirely ignorant of the cost such "help" would result in.

All in all, for the most part, it's loud mouthed morons that have self marginalized themselves because for whatever reason, they can't seem to live by the same laws that everyone else seems to be quite fine and okay with.




edit on 24-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Ill state the obvious, the federal government has already fought and won a civil war, using all out tactics that devastated the nations populace.

At the point where a civil war is even seriously being considered both sides have already lost, the people for one would be doomed, and two the government waging it would no longer be the same US that it was.

Which any serious look at history could argue was the case with the civil war, states rights have never been the same since.

The only hope would be to shame TPTB into change at that point, with devastation on all sides.

As for the rest you are right, if people want change they have to use the systems in place in such a way there could be no doubt that the people where united in their purpose.

Sadly we are all far to divided to even begin, by race, by creed, by socioeconomic class and what ever else the media can think of to keep us separate.

I fear we are in the slow collapse of our republic, How long did it take the romans to see their nation was doomed...
edit on 24-2-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)


+60 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 
You say the "government" would do all these things. Our government is mostly made up of rich old people who probably can't even shop for their own groceries. Desk types who do not have the ability to do anything you've described.

The military has the capabilities, but do you honestly think they would be dumping smallpox in the rivers they grew up fishing in? Setting off nukes in their home towns? Strafing convoys of civilians, including their own families? Absurd.
edit on 24-2-2013 by VariableConstant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by VariableConstant
reply to post by sajuek
 
You say the "government" would do all these things. Our government is mostly made up of rich old people who probably can't even shop for their own groceries. Desk types who do not have the ability to do anything you've described.

The military has the capabilities, but do you honestly think they would be dumping smallpox in the rivers they grew up fishing in? Setting off nukes in their home towns? Strafing convoys of civilians, including their own families? Absurd.
edit on 24-2-2013 by VariableConstant because: (no reason given)


might want to read this link

Shermans march to the sea



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Heree is my rant.

American people were deluded before , but they were at ease and peace so govt was sure that the guns would bring no damage to them.

Now that US is shifting power , it is a relief for the govt to know that people are controlled and powerless than ever.

Those who want to try guns and make their dreams come true , better go to army and help the imperialism to grow.

And US govt doesn't want civil war. It wants war on other nation.Like no father wants to see his children be dragged apart , US wants the control and the power of people.

People should come to wars with their freewill or they will be useless.

So , IMO , US govt is pointing direction for American people.

Guns...............................No
Killing other nations..........Yes



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by VariableConstant
reply to post by sajuek
 

The military has the capabilities, but do you honestly think they would be dumping smallpox in the rivers they grew up fishing in? Setting off nukes in their home towns? Strafing convoys of civilians, including their own families? Absurd.
edit on 24-2-2013 by VariableConstant because: (no reason given)


I'm sure their families would be alive and well. Do you honestly think that, with the moral insanity which proponents of armed resistance apply to the US Government (The same people that did 9/11 to their own people, remember?) that they wouldn't find a single person who would be willing to do any of this?

They could even twist it as saying the rebellion raided a university and let off the smallpox virus when they were attempting to steal it to use as a weapon.

According to these people, the "sheeple" always believe the MSM story, remember?


+73 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 

Just so you know, your facts are way off, and you skewed the numbers to puff up your threads evidence factor, either to try and get a knee jerk reaction, or because you cant add, or your drinking your countries koolaid.

35 percent plus 65 percent equals 100 percent. I can assure you, from 35 years of firsthand personal experience, 100 percent of the populous is not fat. I for one am 5 foot 10 inches tall and 155 lbs. Scrawny by most standards, so are a lot of us, then you have your sick skinny types, a lot of these also, then your typical exercise nuts, a lot of them too. So you see, way less than 100 percent of the populous is fat and or overweight.

Even the worst tyrants in history rarely used chem biological weapons against their populations, not to mention the obvious fact that one wouldnt want to irreparably damage the same lands they are trying to take, doesnt make sense to burn down the house you want to keep, just to get the tennants you dont like out of it right?

Even the most brutal occupations in history, no matter the tactics, no matter the peoples, no matte r the technological level of either side, or the gap between the levels, has ever been able to win against a populous that opposes them.
Vietnam, for france and America
Afghanistan, for russia and america
America, mexico, south america, africa, china, ireland, scottland, india, australia, indonesia....etc all through off the colonial rule of the most brutal regime in history, the english empire. The technological tyrants of their time, still had no chance in the long run.

How about farther back? Rome, destroyed by cavemen with sticks, although they had basically modern artillery, acurate, persistant, and effective. And yet....

There is no chance that the .gov could take on 1 percent of the populous, that is 3 million folks on their own ground, fighting for their families, vs. Tyrants, that are fighting for greed. When a man is fighting for his family, he will do some amazing things, but giving up is not one of them. When someone is fighting for greex, they will only fight and sacrifice so much before they look for an easier mark somewhere else, as it just snt worth the loss, to acquire so small a gain.

In short op, you are flat out wrong, and quite mistaken about the way the world actually works. Stop drinking the koolaid, it isnt good for you.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Overhyped more than fact. The South likes to bring it up because it provides a narrative of a hostile conqueror (just for the record I own a Confederate naval flag and no American flag, my forefathers have Confederate crosses on their grave, and were part of the 5th Georgia Light Artillery. I can trace my ancestry in Georgia back to when the Crown sent inmates from debtors prison to colonize it; so a Union sympathizer I ain't).

The goal was to simply get from Atlanta to Savannah. Read Sherman's order and you will see that it was designed to destroy industry found and raid for supplies. He was by-passing all areas of resistance, such as Camp Gordon in Augusta, to sack Savannah and didn't have the logistics train to Atlanta much less from Atlanta to points unknown.


+2 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by sajuek
 

Just so you know, your facts are way off, and you skewed the numbers to puff up your threads evidence factor, either to try and get a knee jerk reaction, or because you cant add, or your drinking your countries koolaid.

35 percent plus 65 percent equals 100 percent. I can assure you, from 35 years of firsthand personal experience, 100 percent of the populous is not fat. I for one am 5 foot 10 inches tall and 155 lbs. Scrawny by most standards, so are a lot of us, then you have your sick skinny types, a lot of these also, then your typical exercise nuts, a lot of them too. So you see, way less than 100 percent of the populous is fat and or overweight.



American education at its finest. Learn to read.

35% of the population is obese.

65% of the population is obese or overweight.

So, once again, 35% of the population is obese. Another 30% is overweight. This adds up to 65% who are obese or overweight. (35 + 30 = 65). I went on to reflect this my showing what % of the populous was able bodied and of an age they could contribute to the war effort (Unless you're proposing the use of child soldiers) (40%-20%, and this was being EXTREMELY generous as it's assuming everyone, both men and women, who aren't fat from the ages of 18-64 can fight which just isn't so).

People bleat on about how the government are poisoning them all the time and are the ultimate evil. Using their logic there's no reason they would not use biochem or nuclear weapons. These things are by no means irreperable as nuclear fades and viruses stop spreading once there's no one left. A tactical nuke will have a fallout halflife of maybe 50 years if it's a big one. Most likely a lot less. This is nothing in the scheme of things. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today no problem and they have for a long time.

Also, all of your examples are bogus because of any combination:

1. They are all alien occupations of foreign lands. Not an oppression.
2. Most of these occupiers didn't have satellites, smallpox cultures or predator drones. Those that did... see below.
3. Vietnam and Afghanistan as I already explained were "Hearts and Minds" wars. If the goal was absolute destruction of the population then it would have been a totally different war.

You also forget there was one such instance: The successful American victory/genocide of the American Indians which was largely attributed to (wait for it) the intentional infection of natives with the smallpox virus which wiped out 90-95% of their population.

It isn't 1776 anymore. War has changed and it's not about lining up with the most men and firing at the other people who have lined up their men who are shooting back. Small arms and little to no strategic cohesion poses no. Repeat. No threat to a modern military which is prepared to handle it.

Also, Rome wasn't destroyed by cavemen. Learn something about the Vandals insulting their memory by insinuating this.

Individual bravery or "what you're fighting for" means nothing. The winner of a war is simply industrial capacity x technological/tactical advantage x manpower. You might have the manpower, but none of the others and we'll see how brave Joe Bloggs is dieing in a pool of his own dysentry too afraid to get out of his fox hole because a UAV will drop a missile on his head.
edit on 24-2-2013 by sajuek because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Hello.
I have thought of this scenario as well.
My take is that it would be a war of attrition. We WOULD win with numbers, over time.
Sure the Gov is a big beast, but its hungry. We could starve it. Both figuratively and literally.
We would be everywhere at once.
Look what the Afgans are able to do from a cave! Can you imagine
what I could do with my full shop, full of tools and gadgets and black-powder and what not.
Sure there isn't that many “fit for combat” people around, but even 1% of 250 million is a worrisome
number to try and kill off or control.

Also, look at our street gangs. They just need a logistical commander and they could be a force to be
reckoned with (ala Black Hawk Down), as well as the survivalists in the Rockies or in Idaho (ala Red
Dawn). They would come down out of the hills and try to gum up the Gov works.
I once had no hope for the civilians vs the jack boots, but I have more hope everyday as people start to
wake up, get informed and angry.
It can and will be won.
I just hope your not an American. We don’t need your defeatist attitude!



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by twoturtles
Hello.
I have thought of this scenario as well.
My take is that it would be a war of attrition. We WOULD win with numbers, over time.
Sure the Gov is a big beast, but its hungry. We could starve it. Both figuratively and literally.
We would be everywhere at once.
Look what the Afgans are able to do from a cave! Can you imagine
what I could do with my full shop, full of tools and gadgets and black-powder and what not.
Sure there isn't that many “fit for combat” people around, but even 1% of 250 million is a worrisome
number to try and kill off or control.

Also, look at our street gangs. They just need a logistical commander and they could be a force to be
reckoned with (ala Black Hawk Down), as well as the survivalists in the Rockies or in Idaho (ala Red
Dawn). They would come down out of the hills and try to gum up the Gov works.
I once had no hope for the civilians vs the jack boots, but I have more hope everyday as people start to
wake up, get informed and angry.
It can and will be won.
I just hope your not an American. We don’t need your defeatist attitude!


Please tell me what resource you would starve the government of in order to make it lose by attrition.

Please outline what targets you would hit in order to damage the governments war effort against you.

Please describe how you would deal any sort of damage to the USN and USAF who are based off-shore.

No, I'm not American.


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


The only thing you bring up that even comes close to addressing anything I wrote about in response to your op was the example of the native americans, in which case it was never about controlling them, which is the , point here, as it was never mentioned in your op that this was to be a flat out war of survivablilty, for either the Us .gov, or the American people, which was the case with the indians. They didnt want them to be good and behave, them wanted them gone. There is a huge difference between the 2.

The .gov would do no better in a flat out war of extinction, as the people can live without the .gov, there is no .gov without the people. A couple thousand douche bags ordering the slaughter of every american is not going to go over well at all for those issuing the orders.

So once again we are back to, your flat out wrong, and the only evidence you gave was not even about the same situation, it was about the intentional genocide of a people instead of a tyranical .gov trying to subdue a populous by force. So you resorted to trying to attack my education, which I assure you, was at least as good as yours, but I bet is far better.

Just for example, you should have written " 35 percent of the adult populous is obese, with 65 percent of these being morbidly obese to obese" instead of " 35 percent of the populous is obese with 65 percent morbidly obese to bese".

You see when communicating ideas, it is imporant to correctly write them out, as others dont know what you mean, they simply see what you write. So instead of attacking someone for showing the error in your syntax, you should have simply corrected it and moved along back to the relevant topic of discussion.


+20 more 
posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by sajuek
 


I'ts moronic drivel from people that have more guns than they have IQ points.

The same people will argue about all our soldiers getting killed in [insert name of foreign country here], but they want to have these same soldiers lined up in their crosshairs?

Any civil war on American soil would also result in a number of opportunist nations stepping in to "help".
Many a faction would even willfully invite said "help"; entirely ignorant of the cost such "help" would result in.

All in all, for the most part, it's loud mouthed morons that have self marginalized themselves because for whatever reason, they can't seem to live by the same laws that everyone else seems to be quite fine and okay with.




edit on 24-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


Arguing all points is always a good thing, but you always manage to get your little slanders in, don't you?

So because of your personal stand on guns, all opposing are of low IQ? I think you and your ilk would be very surprised.

And who the hell has EVER openly advocated for having to kill our troops? You just made that up right then and there. Hell most troops, though fighting misguided wars, would not adhere to your beliefs.

As for the rest.........

We don't care who steps in, we beat the best army in the world with little more then a bunch of patriotic farmers. And we never cowed down to any LAWS. You would of been one of those yelling against fighting the British. You think the government/s are your friend? You think they'd never go against your interests? You would love communism!



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


History is full of failed revolutions and people's voices snuffed out. France wasn't willing: Germany had no problem occupying and supressing them in World War 2. Granted they lost their hold but that was due to outside intervention.

Instances of dictators using biochems on their own population actually prove very successful at suppressing them. Read: Saddam Hussein and the Kurds.

You've yet to raise a single point which would suggest any means of attack against Smallpox being used as a weapon and a decentralised government who you can't use Guerilla warfare against who is attacking you from the skies. Do you remember what the UN did to Libya with just air superiority alone supporting a very small, ill equipped and ill trained ground force? That wasn't even CLOSE to full mobilization and they were being very, very careful over collateral damage. Imagine if it was full mobilization, no collateral consideration, backing the USMC or UN Peacekeepers. Numbers count for nothing because daisycutters and 125mm shells work just the same again 100 or 100,000.

And yes, the US Government could survive without the people as they would have International support watch the EU and other 1st world countries throw money, supplies, loans even arms and troops their way to support this end.

With no running water and poisoned rivers (Even without Cholera, with all the industrial dumping that takes place you'd probably die if you drank it), the US population could hydrate itself for a week, maybe 2 tops with bottled and rain water. This is how long you would have before the revolution, apart from a small handful of isolated and easily dispatched pockets of resistance, would cease to exist.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by wingsfan
 


Oh please. You were supporting the Spanish and French in beating some American Loyalists. If it was the British army and Navy without any other military obligations fully mobilized in the USA the revolution of 1776 would have gotten ugly for you fast.

And even then, there're a good 12 points where you were a hairs breadth from losing and favourable weather conditions were the sole reason you didn't carry on as a colony resigned to its chains for another 200 years until the British gave you independence.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


This is how it works. First, a lot of us have already been trained ( thank you uncle sam hehe) so we know what the beast needs to stay healthy and strong, as we were already in the belly as it were.

Everything they do, is your target, every access road to or from any of their assets is a target, every vehicle going or coming is a target, power lines, water lines, phone and IT lines and dishes...etc

If they have a guy doing a job, your job is to make his life suck all the time, make them have to send a 6 man fire team to cover the 1 guy it takes to repair the damage you caused, now they have 6 guys wIsting their time guarding a guy fixing damage you caused yesterday, while your out breaking 6 other things right now. Keep them wasting man power and resources all the time everywhere.

Pop every single tire on every vehicle you can, cut electrical wires buried deep inside wiring harnesses so they have to waste hours to fix a couple minutes of work.

Basically the one tactic that takes no tech at all and barely any effort on the part of the person doing it, but takes time resources and skill to fix.

And while they are busy with half their force guarding warehouses and vehicles and personnel from sabotage, they are open and weak to other less friendly means ofweakening an enemies forces.

Hypothetically speaking of course, after all, the .gov isnt at war with the people as of yet, at least that I know of, and all of this has been covered about a million times already on a million other forums.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sajuek
 


Hmmm. Doin a little diggin' there? Why ask someone to incriminate themselves on an open forum, that's surely monitored for buzz words?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 





There is no chance that the .gov could take on 1 percent of the populous, that is 3 million folks on their own ground, fighting for their families, vs. Tyrants


Why not. It is simple and easy. They simply have to release a virus and the job is done...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Because I'm a paid government shill putting domestic terrorists on a Government kill list.

reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


That's all fine and dandy, and I can see why it'd serve as a good way to waste time. But under those circumstances, simply pulling back and dealing with these annoyances from afar (Off shore, bases in the middle of the desert where it's impossible to hide from eyes in the sky) via predator drones, cruise missiles, AC-130's, Apaches etc would be preceisely what would happen.






top topics



 
32
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join