I honestly don’t know how well the US military would actually defend against a civil war. If it’s guerilla then they can’t just bomb the enemy.
Comment on Anon explains the 2nd amendment
Kaboom@reddthat.com 6 months ago
Yes, because the middle east never happened.
tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
Zexks@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Lmao. “Can’t just bomb the enemy”. Someone hasn’t been paying attention.
SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The guy who lives next door might be that enemy…you would be collateral damage.
drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They got drones.
Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
That’s an imperial war where local knowledge is extremely limited and your relying on sympathetic locals to let you know the terrain and who the enemy are. If that sympathetic population is low like in Afghanistan or Vietnam then you’ll walk into every ambush and never root out the enemy. In this environment guerilla war with small arms can work
If tyrrany comes to the u.s. though it’ll come with at least 30% support if not more, ironically most likely by the 2a nuts. They’ll happily point out every enemy of the state on there block and warn you about every ambush, hell they’ll probably shoot them for you.
originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 6 months ago
No, no, see it was the right of private gun ownership in Afghanistan. Just the guns nothing else necessary. And, by the way, “we could be like Afghanistan “ is actually a very good argument and not at all an admission.
\s
SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 months ago
What you just described makes it easier to control a country…they don’t look like us, they didn’t sound like us, and they didn’t dress like us…now try that shit with people who do. A civil war in the US would not end well for anyone.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 months ago
and your relying on sympathetic locals
This would also be true of a guerilla civil war in the US though. You’d be relying on locals–people that had probably had friends and families killed by gov’t military operations and indiscriminate bombing–to help you root out insurrectionists.
Would a large number of 2A supporters be in favor of tyranny as long at it had an ® next to it? Sure. Certainly not all of us though.
giantofthenorth@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Or Vietnam, post war Japan/Germany, the Philippines, the civil war & Wild West, any native American tribe etc.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The issue is about endurance. Are you okay with losing the majority of battles and having x10 the casualties? Not to mention all the left over bombs and chemicals causing deformations long after. A philosopher once said everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face.
HelixDab2@lemm.ee 6 months ago
The thing is that having 10x the casualties tends to create more fighters.
This is why Israel needs to commit total genocide in order to “win” in Gaza and the West Bank. Every time they kill a legitimate Palestinian fighter–versus an uninvolved civilian–they’re killing someone that had a family, and friends, people that knew the person, people that loved the person, had probably heard about the injustices (real or perceived; mostly real in the case of Palestinians) from them, and knew why they were taking up arms. These people don’t end up being cowed by the violence. Then you add in the people who have their whole families killed by indiscriminate bombing, and no longer feel like they have anything to lose except their shackles.
We know this already. We’ve known this since WWII. The Axis and Allies both through that bombing civilian population centers–London for the Axis, Dresden for the Allies–would break the will of the people, but instead it hardened them. The concept of total war and mass casualties simply Does. Not. Work.
You can’t win wars like this through military force alone, unless you’re willing to commit total genocide.
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Until it doesn’t. Case in point is that large empires exist. Greece has the 300 story, yet were part of Rome and The Ottomans. China has Tibet. US has native lands. I get your point but freedom fighters depend on sponsorship (Haiti bring an exception) and they do exhaust. Still my point is that super powers can be defeated, its just at a very high cost.
takeda@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Now, try a swarm of armed drones.
skyspydude1@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because if Ukraine has taught us anything, it’s that drones are definitely only limited to large and advanced military powers. There’s no way a civilian would ever be able to make something like that
bassomitron@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ukraine isn’t fighting the bulk of their war with drones, so it isn’t really an appropriate comparison. One of the main reasons they’re still in the fight is the plethora of highly advanced munitions that have been provided to them by NATO members. Lastly, drone warfare has become less and less effective over the last year against Russia. There are lots of countermeasures that can be implemented to take out drones. Hell, if you jam radio signals (which is easy to do), they become virtually useless outside of preprogrammed kamikaze tactics.
njm1314@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I’m not sure what you are trying to argue with these examples. Half prove your point, the other half disprove it.