this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
692 points (96.1% liked)
Greentext
4317 readers
507 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, because the middle east never happened.
Or Vietnam, post war Japan/Germany, the Philippines, the civil war & Wild West, any native American tribe etc.
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.
First time I heard anyone call Mike a philosopher.
When he's right he is right.
Perhaps a philosofist
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.
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.
...And that point is often what we call "genocide", when you've killed so many people that there simply aren't enough left to effectively resist, and then you forcibly assimilate the remainder into your culture.
Now, try a swarm of armed drones.
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
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), remote controlled drones become virtually useless outside of preprogrammed kamikaze tactics.
Just to clarify, I don't say that to discredit them being a viable and deadly weapon in guerilla warfare. They're very effective in certain situations and quite dangerous. Just pointing out they're not the end-all-be-all of modern warfare.
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue with these examples. Half prove your point, the other half disprove it.
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.
Lmao. “Can’t just bomb the enemy”. Someone hasn’t been paying attention.
The guy who lives next door might be that enemy...you would be collateral damage.
They got drones.
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.
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.
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
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 (R) next to it? Sure. Certainly not all of us though.