DeletedUser
No, this is something completely separate from the "I Welcome the Revolution" thread.
---------------------
All of these self-proclaimed intellectuals here, and elsewhere, like to claim that one of the Right and Middle's excuses for the Second Amendment (needless to say, I'm referring to United States politics) is that an armed populace can rise up in revolt if they feel the government needs to be replaced.
They argue that military technology is too powerful in comparison to civilian technology.
What, did they all forget that there was heavy artillery back during the American Revolution, that the government's forces had easier access to? It was called cannons.
VIETNAM WAR
American forces, armed with all sorts of fancy technology (helicopters, bombers, etc.) suffer over 30,000 casualties through the course of about one decade. The enemy was a meager force of irregulars armed with rifles, backed up by the ChiComs.
WAR ON TERROR
American forces are winning, but the terrorists are still holding out and doing more damage than they "should". We have bombers, tanks, even Land Warrior! Even so, the terrorists still exist to this day.
Just two examples. Now, I'm going to give you three hypothetical scenarios: an insurrection in my home region (Cumberland Plateau), an insurrection in a major city, and a total civil war (in this case, Middle vs. the Coast).
THE CUMBERLAND PLATEAU TAX REVOLT
Every family I knows owns a gun, either a hunting rifle, a pellet gun/BB gun, or a pistol. My own family owns a pellet gun, BB gun, and a pistol (my father's firearm from when he served as a police officer).
The revolt begins with the US Military sending cavalry and infantry along the interstates and highways. National Guard Reserves throughout the plateau suffer from large-scale desertions as the men return to their families. Partisans sabotage the major roads, slowing down Loyalist progress.
If the government makes it up the plateau, they now face:
1. A large number of partisans, many of whom know how to use their weapons.
2. A smaller number of deserters, trained with military experience.
3. Home-made weapons.
You may remember: the terrorists in the Middle East use improvised explosive devices.
Okay, assume now that there is a caravan of tanks and howitzers moving up the main road in my hometown. That's unbeatable, right? They have tanks! We just have our redneck huntin' guns!
Well, people where I live like to make potato cannons. You could fashion a bazooka out of a Molotov cocktail (or, more likely, black market explosives) and a potato cannon. I have little faith such a thing would work, due to the sheer amount of armour on a tank, but it might be able to. Mines could be laid. There's a reason why so many casualties in Iraq are caused by IEDs.
Furthermore, the tanks would be almost useless. In a forest environment like where I live, the soldiers would have to get out and go searching for the rebels. There, they'd be exposed to guerilla fire.
Ah, planes. Surely, with air support, Loyalist forces would be unstoppable, right?
The US tried bombing Cambodia into non-existence. It was working (we would have won the war if not for the anti-war movement), but we weren't fighting OUR OWN PEOPLE. You can bomb an entire state into ashes, but what is the benefit if by the end you must deal with millions of refugees? Even more important, if you bomb a trailer or a house partisans up here are hiding in, they will just "go camping", moving into the woods.
And, on a side note:
It might be better just to stay on the ground, but where I live one could take biplanes and outfit them with machine guns. It'd probably be more like a suicide attack than Red Dawn, though.
A CITY REVOLT
I don't live in a city, so I can't imagine a battle for one as clearly as I can my own home region. But, here's a few things to think of:
1. Cities are generally more important than towns.
2. Cities are easier to "break": striking a refinery, a factory, or any of the right buildings might spell disaster.
3. Cities have lots of roads.
4. Cities tend to have airports.
5. A city actually is a better spot for a guerilla battle, given the number of places to hide.
THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
Here, I'm assuming it's the "Middle" vs. the "Sides".
1. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to serve in the military than "Sides" people.
2. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to own firearms than "Sides" people.
3. The South had little industry back during the Civil War. Now, it has industry.
4. The breadbasket of the United States is the "Middle".
---------------------
All of these self-proclaimed intellectuals here, and elsewhere, like to claim that one of the Right and Middle's excuses for the Second Amendment (needless to say, I'm referring to United States politics) is that an armed populace can rise up in revolt if they feel the government needs to be replaced.
They argue that military technology is too powerful in comparison to civilian technology.
What, did they all forget that there was heavy artillery back during the American Revolution, that the government's forces had easier access to? It was called cannons.
VIETNAM WAR
American forces, armed with all sorts of fancy technology (helicopters, bombers, etc.) suffer over 30,000 casualties through the course of about one decade. The enemy was a meager force of irregulars armed with rifles, backed up by the ChiComs.
WAR ON TERROR
American forces are winning, but the terrorists are still holding out and doing more damage than they "should". We have bombers, tanks, even Land Warrior! Even so, the terrorists still exist to this day.
Just two examples. Now, I'm going to give you three hypothetical scenarios: an insurrection in my home region (Cumberland Plateau), an insurrection in a major city, and a total civil war (in this case, Middle vs. the Coast).
THE CUMBERLAND PLATEAU TAX REVOLT
Every family I knows owns a gun, either a hunting rifle, a pellet gun/BB gun, or a pistol. My own family owns a pellet gun, BB gun, and a pistol (my father's firearm from when he served as a police officer).
The revolt begins with the US Military sending cavalry and infantry along the interstates and highways. National Guard Reserves throughout the plateau suffer from large-scale desertions as the men return to their families. Partisans sabotage the major roads, slowing down Loyalist progress.
If the government makes it up the plateau, they now face:
1. A large number of partisans, many of whom know how to use their weapons.
2. A smaller number of deserters, trained with military experience.
3. Home-made weapons.
You may remember: the terrorists in the Middle East use improvised explosive devices.
Okay, assume now that there is a caravan of tanks and howitzers moving up the main road in my hometown. That's unbeatable, right? They have tanks! We just have our redneck huntin' guns!
Well, people where I live like to make potato cannons. You could fashion a bazooka out of a Molotov cocktail (or, more likely, black market explosives) and a potato cannon. I have little faith such a thing would work, due to the sheer amount of armour on a tank, but it might be able to. Mines could be laid. There's a reason why so many casualties in Iraq are caused by IEDs.
Furthermore, the tanks would be almost useless. In a forest environment like where I live, the soldiers would have to get out and go searching for the rebels. There, they'd be exposed to guerilla fire.
Ah, planes. Surely, with air support, Loyalist forces would be unstoppable, right?
The US tried bombing Cambodia into non-existence. It was working (we would have won the war if not for the anti-war movement), but we weren't fighting OUR OWN PEOPLE. You can bomb an entire state into ashes, but what is the benefit if by the end you must deal with millions of refugees? Even more important, if you bomb a trailer or a house partisans up here are hiding in, they will just "go camping", moving into the woods.
And, on a side note:
It might be better just to stay on the ground, but where I live one could take biplanes and outfit them with machine guns. It'd probably be more like a suicide attack than Red Dawn, though.
A CITY REVOLT
I don't live in a city, so I can't imagine a battle for one as clearly as I can my own home region. But, here's a few things to think of:
1. Cities are generally more important than towns.
2. Cities are easier to "break": striking a refinery, a factory, or any of the right buildings might spell disaster.
3. Cities have lots of roads.
4. Cities tend to have airports.
5. A city actually is a better spot for a guerilla battle, given the number of places to hide.
THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
Here, I'm assuming it's the "Middle" vs. the "Sides".
1. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to serve in the military than "Sides" people.
2. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to own firearms than "Sides" people.
3. The South had little industry back during the Civil War. Now, it has industry.
4. The breadbasket of the United States is the "Middle".