Not like it even matters. After the military saw how badly COIN went against a bunch of illiterate Afghanis and Iraqis with less guns per capita than the US, there's no way they'd ever think they could succeed against a mass insurgency in the US.
The biggest role the military would have to play is in political gamesmanship, if real insurgency ever happened they'd side with the insurgents.
Yeah, but (Bill Maher smug face) do you really think you’re gonna do anything to the US military hiding with your AR-15 in a shack, Billy Bob? Nice try, retard, but the military has drones. Also, soldiers are mindless automatons who don’t mind killing their own people and insurgencies by non-state actors never work. Now vote blue in 2018, subhuman. It’s in your best interest.
Nazi LARPers fuck off. Insurgencies are won by young populations with high birth rates and huge stocks of Warsaw Pact munitions, not welfare plantations full of impotent greying Mayos with handheld guns.
That doesn’t matter when the population of the United States is so much bigger than the population of any other country occupied by the military.
huge stocks of Warsaw Pact munitions
You’re the only person I’ve seen hype up 30 year-old rusty AK-47s like that.
not welfare plantations full of impotent greying Mayos with handheld guns.
Obviously a country with 20 million US military veterans, many of them still young and able-bodied, and 393 million guns will fare much better in an insurgency than a country with a total of 40 million severely inbred goatfuckers, of whom only about 30% are fighting-age men. What planet are you from?
Afghanistan's got about 12 million military age men. The US has about 90 million, so figure half that in a civil war. And if the US military is right and over 71% of military age Americans are physically unfit for military service, 45 million becomes 13 million. 13 million with low replenishment vs 12 million with high replenishment.
What planet are you from?
A planet where handheld guns haven't won wars for hundreds of years.
A planet where handheld guns haven't won wars for hundreds of years
Okay are you high everything in the military comes down to supporting the infantry man with his handheld gun, no matter the technology, no matter the culture, no matter when in history for only the infantry man and his rifle can hold ground.
How much of that 71% includes women? Plus, the number of American women who can fight isn’t insignificant and would number in a few millions.
And if the US military is right and over 71% of military age Americans are physically unfit for military service, 45 million becomes 13 million. 13 million with low replenishment vs 12 million with high replenishment.
The rates don’t matter, only absolute numbers. US adds 2.6 million people each year to Afghanistan’s 800,000.
You’re assuming that every Afghan fighting-age male would pass the requirements for the US armed services when they live in the poorest country in Asia. Malnourishment damages your health just as much as being a landwhale. Also you’re assuming that the entire population of Afghanistan is fighting the US in this hypothetical situation, when there are at most 90,000 insurgents fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan right now, and Taliban still has a presence in the country. Now imagine how it would go fighting an insurgency in the US with your lowball estimate of 13 million.
A planet where handheld guns haven't won wars for hundreds of years.
So you’re not from Earth? How about the Afghan insurgency against the Red Army? And before you mention Stinger missiles or whatever, are you really naive enough to think that the American insurgents wouldn’t be able to get their hands on any heavy weaponry? There would be factions in the military that go over to the rebels, outside forces supplying equipment to the rebels, and equipment captured by the rebels, which would ensure that the rebels have access to heavy weaponry. But a war waged primarily with small arms is still very much winnable, especially when you consider how little progress is being made in Afghanistan after seventeen years.
Counterinsurgencies always fail when there is insufficient political will. Don't assume lack of political will to kill Islamists translates to lack of political will for mayocide.
Its less about political will and more about practicality, in my estimation. If the USA had Roman-tier cojones they could glass the Middle East. They can't glass their own territory without losing their logistical capability to produce glassing devices in the first place.
It sounds to me like you have a cartoon, fairy tale idea of what civil war would mean. It would not be "prosperous, coastal states vs. haystack flyover country". The divide is between large cities and everywhere else, I'm in one of the most solidly blue states in the country and the "blue" part of that is the biggest city, the rest of the state goes from center right to straight aryan compound territory.
Some of the most sensitive facilities also tend to be located away from those blue cities, in rural areas. Serviced by largely rural populations.
Doesn't matter. A unit that is divided because of insubordination/illegal orders/lack of unit cohesion is operationally ineffective. Most of the brass will stand down and most of the ones that don't will side with elites against the people. The higher-ups consist of apparatchiks who wear the uniform because they want to sit on corporate boards and hang out their shingle in politics after kissing the right rings. These people control promotions and they only promote their own kind above the junior officer level. The handful of leaders known or suspected to have loyalty to the administration would be targeted in the opening stages of a coup.
Also WTF good are nukes going to do you? You going to radiate and destroy infrastructure you're going to need?
I love hypothetical war games so let's break this down. Let's say hypothetically it's the army and marines vs the air force and navy.
First things first is that even the basic army pog has a better understanding of ground warfare and weapons familiarization than most of the navy and airforce.
Second. Planes need to land and ships need to be able to port for resupply. You're not going to be able to have any type of meaningful defenses from any ground force without (GASP!!!) The army and marines. The airforce would be the first to go. As most airforce bases are landlocked and not very defendable.
Ports wouldn't be difficult either. Marines would be able to assault by sea and army would be able to move in by land. Ships would be able to hold out for a while. But not forever since they would need resupply.
This is all assuming that there is no other countries involved. Which would be very likely they would be. In which case all ground forces would need to do is capture the ports.
Not to seriouspost but the Marines wouldn't be doing shit by sea without the Navy.
I can't imagine the whole Navy coming down on the rebel side in a civil war - knew a lot of conservative-leaning sailors when I was in - so it's perhaps a moot point. But in your scenario, the Marines would be basically limited to air and land movement.
The nearest beachhead to a Navy port big enough to land an MEU is likely to already be occupied by Marines, because that's where they put FMF bases.
There's a reason for that - AAVs have a very short range in water. You send a Navy ship to pick them up (or drive them over land to the Navy port), they spend a couple months on the ship working out, eating, and jerking off, and then the ship drops them off within eyesight of the target beachhead.
Without Navy amphibious ships, a Marine amphibious force is just a short-range air/land combat unit.
ITT people who came to make fun of lefties having an imaginary civil war circlejerk come to have a righty one instead.
I love playing out all sorts of war scenarios in my head.
I honestly cant think of too many scenarios where a leftist opposition could win without the help of a VERY large and realistic international coalition with the current state of affairs. And even I dont find it reasonably possible.
Logistically to have a international coalition with any reasonable presence would be a nightmare if not impossible.
By the time a coalition is formed and dedicated to sending troops most ports will either be destroyed or occupied by the military already. You could argue that they could come in through Canada or Mexico. But any of those two countries would be at risk of invasion from the United states in order to establish any supply routes.
I dont think any of those two want to deal with that all because of drumph.
35 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-08-17
You were put down, in the future please refrain from discussing subjects you have no education in.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 boyoyoyoyong 2018-08-17
Are they really this unaware on who the vast majority of military members voted for
1 Russiangreyman 2018-08-17
Yes.
1 gnrlysrs 2018-08-17
I don't want another civil war, but I almost want to see what the militias are capable of doing.
1 Zeriell 2018-08-17
Not like it even matters. After the military saw how badly COIN went against a bunch of illiterate Afghanis and Iraqis with less guns per capita than the US, there's no way they'd ever think they could succeed against a mass insurgency in the US.
The biggest role the military would have to play is in political gamesmanship, if real insurgency ever happened they'd side with the insurgents.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-08-17
Yeah, but (Bill Maher smug face) do you really think you’re gonna do anything to the US military hiding with your AR-15 in a shack, Billy Bob? Nice try, retard, but the military has drones. Also, soldiers are mindless automatons who don’t mind killing their own people and insurgencies by non-state actors never work. Now vote blue in 2018, subhuman. It’s in your best interest.
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Nazi LARPers fuck off. Insurgencies are won by young populations with high birth rates and huge stocks of Warsaw Pact munitions, not welfare plantations full of impotent greying Mayos with handheld guns.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-08-17
That doesn’t matter when the population of the United States is so much bigger than the population of any other country occupied by the military.
You’re the only person I’ve seen hype up 30 year-old rusty AK-47s like that.
Obviously a country with 20 million US military veterans, many of them still young and able-bodied, and 393 million guns will fare much better in an insurgency than a country with a total of 40 million severely inbred goatfuckers, of whom only about 30% are fighting-age men. What planet are you from?
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Afghanistan's got about 12 million military age men. The US has about 90 million, so figure half that in a civil war. And if the US military is right and over 71% of military age Americans are physically unfit for military service, 45 million becomes 13 million. 13 million with low replenishment vs 12 million with high replenishment.
A planet where handheld guns haven't won wars for hundreds of years.
1 RoebuckThirtyFour 2018-08-17
Okay are you high everything in the military comes down to supporting the infantry man with his handheld gun, no matter the technology, no matter the culture, no matter when in history for only the infantry man and his rifle can hold ground.
1 Imperial_Sardaukar 2018-08-17
How much of that 71% includes women? Plus, the number of American women who can fight isn’t insignificant and would number in a few millions.
The rates don’t matter, only absolute numbers. US adds 2.6 million people each year to Afghanistan’s 800,000.
You’re assuming that every Afghan fighting-age male would pass the requirements for the US armed services when they live in the poorest country in Asia. Malnourishment damages your health just as much as being a landwhale. Also you’re assuming that the entire population of Afghanistan is fighting the US in this hypothetical situation, when there are at most 90,000 insurgents fighting against the Coalition in Afghanistan right now, and Taliban still has a presence in the country. Now imagine how it would go fighting an insurgency in the US with your lowball estimate of 13 million.
So you’re not from Earth? How about the Afghan insurgency against the Red Army? And before you mention Stinger missiles or whatever, are you really naive enough to think that the American insurgents wouldn’t be able to get their hands on any heavy weaponry? There would be factions in the military that go over to the rebels, outside forces supplying equipment to the rebels, and equipment captured by the rebels, which would ensure that the rebels have access to heavy weaponry. But a war waged primarily with small arms is still very much winnable, especially when you consider how little progress is being made in Afghanistan after seventeen years.
1 Sietch_fremen 2018-08-17
Trump protects.
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Counterinsurgencies always fail when there is insufficient political will. Don't assume lack of political will to kill Islamists translates to lack of political will for mayocide.
1 Zeriell 2018-08-17
Its less about political will and more about practicality, in my estimation. If the USA had Roman-tier cojones they could glass the Middle East. They can't glass their own territory without losing their logistical capability to produce glassing devices in the first place.
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Nukes are for MAD and infrastructure. Red states have no infrastructure to speak of.
They could use bioweapons without glassing anything.
1 Zeriell 2018-08-17
It sounds to me like you have a cartoon, fairy tale idea of what civil war would mean. It would not be "prosperous, coastal states vs. haystack flyover country". The divide is between large cities and everywhere else, I'm in one of the most solidly blue states in the country and the "blue" part of that is the biggest city, the rest of the state goes from center right to straight aryan compound territory.
Some of the most sensitive facilities also tend to be located away from those blue cities, in rural areas. Serviced by largely rural populations.
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Washington or Oregon?
So replace them. Automation, outsourcing, visa programs, illegal immigration, mass immigration - options abound.
46% pay no taxes. The number of people dependent on government has doubled and it hasn't crippled the military.
Wealthy taxpayers are concentrated in urban areas.
60% of the budget is Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid. Cutting services to rebel areas will offset any loss in tax base.
1 IamSwedishSuckMyNuts 2018-08-17
There is literally no way this post is serious. The difference between a ordinary American and Afghan is about yey big, times a million.
1 preserved_fish 2018-08-17
Grunts don't really matter at the end of the day. The brass hates Donny Bone-spurs.
1 LightUmbra 2018-08-17
The top Brass ain't much of anything if the crayon eaters don't listen.
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
Doesn't matter. A unit that is divided because of insubordination/illegal orders/lack of unit cohesion is operationally ineffective. Most of the brass will stand down and most of the ones that don't will side with elites against the people. The higher-ups consist of apparatchiks who wear the uniform because they want to sit on corporate boards and hang out their shingle in politics after kissing the right rings. These people control promotions and they only promote their own kind above the junior officer level. The handful of leaders known or suspected to have loyalty to the administration would be targeted in the opening stages of a coup.
1 yourdeadwife 2018-08-17
But I need to salivate about my fellow countrymen dying in nuclear fire because they voted differently in an election than me. Don't bring that up.
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2018-08-17
These people want a #Minetoo movement where the entire intelligence community comes out against Trump?
Yeah, I'd imagine the optics on that would look great.
1 IamSwedishSuckMyNuts 2018-08-17
Literally 'Thump is destroying the republic - i.e. we must destroy the republic'. Civil war nao plox.
1 gnrlysrs 2018-08-17
"The Gang destroys the Republic"
1 tgrandiflora 2018-08-17
You mean like the optics of an entire state political party being filmed laughing about mayocide in a 95% mayo state? Nothing happened.
1 nomad1c 2018-08-17
ah yes, that nuclear arsenal will help eradicate those urban conservatives
1 Russiangreyman 2018-08-17
👏YOU👏CANT👏WIN👏A👏WAR👏IF👏YOU👏CANT👏CONTROL👏THE👏GROUND!👏
Also WTF good are nukes going to do you? You going to radiate and destroy infrastructure you're going to need?
I love hypothetical war games so let's break this down. Let's say hypothetically it's the army and marines vs the air force and navy.
First things first is that even the basic army pog has a better understanding of ground warfare and weapons familiarization than most of the navy and airforce.
Second. Planes need to land and ships need to be able to port for resupply. You're not going to be able to have any type of meaningful defenses from any ground force without (GASP!!!) The army and marines. The airforce would be the first to go. As most airforce bases are landlocked and not very defendable.
Ports wouldn't be difficult either. Marines would be able to assault by sea and army would be able to move in by land. Ships would be able to hold out for a while. But not forever since they would need resupply.
This is all assuming that there is no other countries involved. Which would be very likely they would be. In which case all ground forces would need to do is capture the ports.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-08-17
Not to seriouspost but the Marines wouldn't be doing shit by sea without the Navy.
I can't imagine the whole Navy coming down on the rebel side in a civil war - knew a lot of conservative-leaning sailors when I was in - so it's perhaps a moot point. But in your scenario, the Marines would be basically limited to air and land movement.
1 Russiangreyman 2018-08-17
Couldn't they just flank with lavs and aavp's? Assuming theres a beachhead relatively close by?
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-08-17
The nearest beachhead to a Navy port big enough to land an MEU is likely to already be occupied by Marines, because that's where they put FMF bases.
There's a reason for that - AAVs have a very short range in water. You send a Navy ship to pick them up (or drive them over land to the Navy port), they spend a couple months on the ship working out, eating, and jerking off, and then the ship drops them off within eyesight of the target beachhead.
Without Navy amphibious ships, a Marine amphibious force is just a short-range air/land combat unit.
1 Russiangreyman 2018-08-17
TIL! I didn't know marine carriers had such short range!
I guess another thing I forgot too is airborne and aerosol is a thing too as well.
When you're a leg you forget these things.
1 VicisSubsisto 2018-08-17
Yeah, there's a reason they're officially part of the Navy.
1 FrenchFriesFriday 2018-08-17
They will defeat them without guns!
1 CSharpApostle 2018-08-17
LOVE TRUMPS HATe!!!
Serious mode: that slogan is so fuckin garbo tier i cant even rn literally
1 Zeriell 2018-08-17
My favorite thing about it is its always used by people who are visibly seething with hatred. I've never seen it said in a positive way.
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2018-08-17
I don't what's funnier, Trump's adoration, or Muller's adoration.
1 CSharpApostle 2018-08-17
sings a mueller lullaby to child
The fact that retards made an unronic “the_mueller” sub is gold
1 Zeriell 2018-08-17
Well, one man, regardless of whether you hate or like him, is the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world. The other is a spook.
It's pretty common to idolize a big daddy figure. Idolizing a spook is fucking weird.
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-08-17
Julian Assange, natch.
1 Honk4Tits 2018-08-17
There is a zero percent chance of a civil war in the next 50 years. People larp too much.
1 ry8919 2018-08-17
ITT people who came to make fun of lefties having an imaginary civil war circlejerk come to have a righty one instead.
1 Russiangreyman 2018-08-17
I love playing out all sorts of war scenarios in my head.
I honestly cant think of too many scenarios where a leftist opposition could win without the help of a VERY large and realistic international coalition with the current state of affairs. And even I dont find it reasonably possible.
Logistically to have a international coalition with any reasonable presence would be a nightmare if not impossible.
By the time a coalition is formed and dedicated to sending troops most ports will either be destroyed or occupied by the military already. You could argue that they could come in through Canada or Mexico. But any of those two countries would be at risk of invasion from the United states in order to establish any supply routes.
I dont think any of those two want to deal with that all because of drumph.
1 ry8919 2018-08-17
Neat
1 Deutschbag_ 2018-08-17
These retards unironically think the US military is left leaning?
Honestly I'm just embarrassed for them at this point.