If there was a true civil war the military would probably be divided with some on one side and some on the other but I really doubt there will be a civil war any time in the near future.
The military is very good about making sure that the people that participate in it adhere to the rules they are given.
People that step out of line will be dealt with abruptly and brutally. I’m not saying there won’t be dissension in the ranks, but I am saying that the number of military people that will split with their command structure is going to be minuscule and easily dealt with.
I disagree. That’s all well and good when it’s a common enemy, but when you’re ordered to attack your family and friends who live in NY, that’s a different ball game.
But you do realize they’re going to shoot you. If they’re actually ordering illegal things they’re going to shoot people who don’t obey the orders too. That’s a hard decision for a teenager to make.
You just need a couple of generals to say “no my orders are legitimate, theirs aren’t, mine come for the real president!” and you have a problem. And all that takes it a little bit of blackmail and bribery or a couple of high ranking useful idiots or psychopathic grifters
Theoretically yes. But if you want to know the climate of senior officers you need look no further than the Joint Chiefs actually yelling at Trump in his office and disseminating memos on exactly what the military oath says. (Loyalty to the Constitution)
I don’t get why people think this is an issue. armed Americans are generally shown going against incompetent, untrained police officers. Not the Military who is also just armed better than Americans are legally allowed to be.
Most gun law defenders also tend to overlook this too in fact. If the government wants to make armed citizens stop, they will do it.
A bunch of uppity, rag-tag civilians with handguns, even the handful of clown shows that call themselves “civilian militias” don’t have the resources, logistics, or numbers to combat the National Guard, let alone the rest of whatever armed forces may be brought to bear against them.
I will also point out that the National Gun of the US is the AR-15/M4 which is a .223/5.56 rifle. It can be seen committing war crimes in the Middle East and murdering children on the middle of main street.
What pathetic few gun regulations we have are mostly related to barrel length and them not being fully automatic. The former only actually matters if you need to fire out of a vehicle (and has ballistics implications). And no, riding around in your cybertruck that will shred you with spall if anyone uses even a 9 mm doesn’t count. And there is increasingly the argument that even military rifles/service weapons should not have automatic capability because a rifleman with full auto is just a waste of ammo.
Assuming that the result of a “civillian militia uprising” is not “And that is what we call a hellfire missile”: The plates in actual military body armor are fairly regularly stopping multiple AK (7.62 mm) rounds. Those hit noticeably harder and is arguably why the US military is pushing for a 6.8 mm round as their standard. If you ever watched an action movie where the protagonist shrugs off a few shots to the chest and returns fire… yeah.
Which is why I always say: if the gun nuts actually gave even a single shit about “we need to be ready to fight the government” they wouldn’t be pushing to have their emotional support assault rifles. The answer would be small caliber high velocity rounds fired from concealable pistols. That gives you good odds of getting rounds into vulnerable/less armored parts of the body and you are fucked if you are in a ranged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades and have access to air support) or a prolonged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades). Like, there is a reason that The Allies dropped so many pistols and concealable weapons to partisans in WW2.
Because any standing fighting force? They will literally be blown to hell.
And, to clarify. I don’t care if you touch yourself to pictures of trump, Lenin, reagan, or che guevara. You are just as dead when the army rolls up.
Okay. Let’s assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not “I play paintball once or twice a year” or “I spend every weekend at the range shooting”. I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.
What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.
Because… any “reasonably” equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.
Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, “guns are cool even if I don’t think civilians should have them”, and “the thing that comes after social activism”:
Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less “stealing” the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn’t stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.
It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be “not worth” the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)
But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don’t even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US “still owns the night” now that consumer grade night vision is “good enough”. And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style…) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.
Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they’ll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.
Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And… that doesn’t work when the country occupying your country is… your country.
Your entire post ignores the reality of what urban small arms warfare looks like. Look at the hellish time militaries have in urban settings: Fallujah, Kabul, Aleppo, Gaza City. Yes, militaries are way better than regular civilians, but there’s something like 400 million guns in the US. This isn’t just a few people we’re talking about here. If 1% of the population puts up a half decent resistance there’s going to be a hell of a fight.
Oh I was hoping somebody would play the “the brave men and women of the mujahideen” card!
Yes. Let’s look at them
If an army does not want to destroy a population center or be seen as oppressors, they can put up a significant fight. That… mostly accomplishes nothing aside from slowly bleeding an army and leading to a withdrawal. Which, as I said, above, only works if there is somewhere to withdraw to. If that is the army’s “land” then they won’t pull out
So… let’s now look at Gaza. Hamas engaged in a horrifically evil terrorist attack. The IDF instantly used that as an excuse to level Gaza to the ground and ethnically cleanse anyone who opposed them. It doesn’t matter how great your small arms tactics are or how many ambushes you have set up if the army is willing to level a few city blocks… or a small city.
And just look at how much the Black Lives Matter movement was vilified by right wing chuds for the recipe for that.
Which gets back to: What are you and your, I am sure incredibly well trained, buddies going to do with all them guns when a tank or even just an APC rolls up? And this ain’t like the movies (… or Russia in Ukraine) where it is a lone tank only defended by Brad Pitt’s winning smile. There will be infantry as well to prevent you from running up and throwing molotovs at it (which wouldn’t even impact an Abrams since that runs so freaking hot?). What will you and your buddies do against drones that are either dropping bombs, launching missiles, or spotting for artillery?
I’m not sure where you think I argued that the civilians would win. My argument is that there would be a civil war because there would be a ton of armed people on both sides of the conflict. You bring up Gaza City like they’re all finished clearing it out. It doesn’t matter how well an army is trained or equipped, urban warfare is absolutely brutal and it would be in America too. You think that the US military could take a city like New York without heavy civilian resistance? Don’t make me laugh.
To answer your question: Me and my buddies would likely be the first to die.
It’s the exact war we spent 20 years fighting already. You don’t want your face on a network chart in a Battalion ops center. And the military wouldn’t split down the middle. It’s 50/50 blue/red but most of the conservatives in the military are wholly unimpressed with the far right. You shoot at an American and call it a war? They’re going to respond negatively.
There’s huge numbers of armed Americans who would be on both sides.
ITT: people who think the armed forces wouldn’t split in a civil war, and that hundreds of millions of civvy owned guns wouldn’t be a factor.
The armaments held by private citizens are laughable in the face of the weapons in the Military.
Any “civil war” in the US would likely be in the form of constant terrorism, not all-out gunfights.
The small flat blade screwdriver in the front pocket of a mechanic is the most terrifying weapon on the planet.
I’d never sully my pocket prybar like that. I have a 24" adjustable wrench that is perfect for swinging.
I will swap the pins on your fuel pump connector while you sleep.
Plz no. There is no alldata for the vehicles I work on :(
sticks pebble in your valve stem cap
If there was a true civil war the military would probably be divided with some on one side and some on the other but I really doubt there will be a civil war any time in the near future.
What makes you think the armed forces won’t split in a civil war?
Chain of command.
The military is very good about making sure that the people that participate in it adhere to the rules they are given.
People that step out of line will be dealt with abruptly and brutally. I’m not saying there won’t be dissension in the ranks, but I am saying that the number of military people that will split with their command structure is going to be minuscule and easily dealt with.
I disagree. That’s all well and good when it’s a common enemy, but when you’re ordered to attack your family and friends who live in NY, that’s a different ball game.
The military allows you to disobey orders that you find unconscionable.
That’s part of our whole don’t commit war crimes thing
But you do realize they’re going to shoot you. If they’re actually ordering illegal things they’re going to shoot people who don’t obey the orders too. That’s a hard decision for a teenager to make.
No it doesn’t. It requires you to disobey orders that are unlawful.
You just need a couple of generals to say “no my orders are legitimate, theirs aren’t, mine come for the real president!” and you have a problem. And all that takes it a little bit of blackmail and bribery or a couple of high ranking useful idiots or psychopathic grifters
Theoretically yes. But if you want to know the climate of senior officers you need look no further than the Joint Chiefs actually yelling at Trump in his office and disseminating memos on exactly what the military oath says. (Loyalty to the Constitution)
They aren’t likely to turn anytime soon.
I don’t know much about such things but I wonder whether it’s possible in any meaningful way.
If there’s a split they don’t just divvy up the toys and have at it.
One side might have a few things on wheels and tracks, but can they call in an air strike? Will they even have GPS?
I don’t get why people think this is an issue. armed Americans are generally shown going against incompetent, untrained police officers. Not the Military who is also just armed better than Americans are legally allowed to be.
Most gun law defenders also tend to overlook this too in fact. If the government wants to make armed citizens stop, they will do it.
A bunch of uppity, rag-tag civilians with handguns, even the handful of clown shows that call themselves “civilian militias” don’t have the resources, logistics, or numbers to combat the National Guard, let alone the rest of whatever armed forces may be brought to bear against them.
Don’t be silly.
I will also point out that the National Gun of the US is the AR-15/M4 which is a .223/5.56 rifle. It can be seen committing war crimes in the Middle East and murdering children on the middle of main street.
What pathetic few gun regulations we have are mostly related to barrel length and them not being fully automatic. The former only actually matters if you need to fire out of a vehicle (and has ballistics implications). And no, riding around in your cybertruck that will shred you with spall if anyone uses even a 9 mm doesn’t count. And there is increasingly the argument that even military rifles/service weapons should not have automatic capability because a rifleman with full auto is just a waste of ammo.
Assuming that the result of a “civillian militia uprising” is not “And that is what we call a hellfire missile”: The plates in actual military body armor are fairly regularly stopping multiple AK (7.62 mm) rounds. Those hit noticeably harder and is arguably why the US military is pushing for a 6.8 mm round as their standard. If you ever watched an action movie where the protagonist shrugs off a few shots to the chest and returns fire… yeah.
Which is why I always say: if the gun nuts actually gave even a single shit about “we need to be ready to fight the government” they wouldn’t be pushing to have their emotional support assault rifles. The answer would be small caliber high velocity rounds fired from concealable pistols. That gives you good odds of getting rounds into vulnerable/less armored parts of the body and you are fucked if you are in a ranged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades and have access to air support) or a prolonged engagement (soldiers carry a LOT of grenades). Like, there is a reason that The Allies dropped so many pistols and concealable weapons to partisans in WW2.
Because any standing fighting force? They will literally be blown to hell.
And, to clarify. I don’t care if you touch yourself to pictures of trump, Lenin, reagan, or che guevara. You are just as dead when the army rolls up.
Jokes on you. I worship at the altar of Murphy. I’ll sure die in a hilarious way, but so will they!
Okay. Let’s assume that you and your buddies are a trained militia. Not “I play paintball once or twice a year” or “I spend every weekend at the range shooting”. I mean you actually have a command structure, know how to move as a unit, and are dedicated enough that you will lay down your life for the person next to you.
What are you going to do against an armored vehicle? Or a drone? Or even just indirect fire.
Because… any “reasonably” equipped military can kill millions of people with minimal effort. Just look at what is happening to Palestine.
Just because this topic interests me due to being the intersection of history, military history, “guns are cool even if I don’t think civilians should have them”, and “the thing that comes after social activism”:
Even in the 1700s, a farmer with a gun in the shed was pretty much useless. Battles were won by large groups of people and the only reasons the US managed to beat the Brits were a combination of more or less “stealing” the British military structure that had been set up to defend ourselves coupled with most combat boiling down to sheer number of people who could sort of hold up a gun and maybe fire it. A couple angry farmers might be able to kill even twice their number of soldiers. But they would be up against ten or twenty times that number and one person going down doesn’t stop the volley. And if you were actually an amazing shot with dozens of muskets and Heath Ledger to reload them for you so that you could constantly unload on anyone who approached your house on the hill? That is when they get the cannon or mortar.
It was largely the late 1800s to mid 1900s where the idea of a militia could actually fight against an army. Particularly the time around World War 2 when we saw a fundamental shift on the battlefield to where even an individual soldier, let alone a squad or company, had enough firepower to make a significant difference. Line of sight was still essential, even for indirect fire, and armored vehicles could still be consistently negated by bottles of gasoline. This is why we even famously saw things like the Wilmington insurrection of 1898 where a relatively limited number of people could cause widespread damage and be “not worth” the army intervening (racism helps a lot too)
But the tail end of the 20th century has largely negated that. Because yes, the individual soldier has more firepower than ever. But satelites and drones mean that you don’t even need line of sight to devastate with indirect fire. And those individual soldiers likely have MUCH better gear than civilians (by design and law). For example, there is a lot of talk about whether the US “still owns the night” now that consumer grade night vision is “good enough”. And that does make a significant difference in terms of raids. We likely will never be able to walk around double tapping helpless brown people (without prep work involving tying them up, cop style…) ever again. But it still means we can maneuver at night when most countries would need to take a break because their eyes hurt or they are nauseous from the FOV. Same with body armor and, probably, optics if the new rifle is any indication.
Which, funny enough, puts us back to the 1700s. A bunch of farmers/klansmen/activists/whatever can equip themselves and even train into a cohesive unit. Sure. And they’ll kill maybe even ten to one in terms of infantry. And then an artillery strike or a missile or even just someone with a joystick inside of an APC will slaughter them and there will be nothing they can do.
Which is why the successful insurgencies are more about unrest and trying to outlast an occupation than anything else. And… that doesn’t work when the country occupying your country is… your country.
Your entire post ignores the reality of what urban small arms warfare looks like. Look at the hellish time militaries have in urban settings: Fallujah, Kabul, Aleppo, Gaza City. Yes, militaries are way better than regular civilians, but there’s something like 400 million guns in the US. This isn’t just a few people we’re talking about here. If 1% of the population puts up a half decent resistance there’s going to be a hell of a fight.
Oh I was hoping somebody would play the “the brave men and women of the mujahideen” card!
Yes. Let’s look at them
If an army does not want to destroy a population center or be seen as oppressors, they can put up a significant fight. That… mostly accomplishes nothing aside from slowly bleeding an army and leading to a withdrawal. Which, as I said, above, only works if there is somewhere to withdraw to. If that is the army’s “land” then they won’t pull out
So… let’s now look at Gaza. Hamas engaged in a horrifically evil terrorist attack. The IDF instantly used that as an excuse to level Gaza to the ground and ethnically cleanse anyone who opposed them. It doesn’t matter how great your small arms tactics are or how many ambushes you have set up if the army is willing to level a few city blocks… or a small city.
And just look at how much the Black Lives Matter movement was vilified by right wing chuds for the recipe for that.
Which gets back to: What are you and your, I am sure incredibly well trained, buddies going to do with all them guns when a tank or even just an APC rolls up? And this ain’t like the movies (… or Russia in Ukraine) where it is a lone tank only defended by Brad Pitt’s winning smile. There will be infantry as well to prevent you from running up and throwing molotovs at it (which wouldn’t even impact an Abrams since that runs so freaking hot?). What will you and your buddies do against drones that are either dropping bombs, launching missiles, or spotting for artillery?
I’m not sure where you think I argued that the civilians would win. My argument is that there would be a civil war because there would be a ton of armed people on both sides of the conflict. You bring up Gaza City like they’re all finished clearing it out. It doesn’t matter how well an army is trained or equipped, urban warfare is absolutely brutal and it would be in America too. You think that the US military could take a city like New York without heavy civilian resistance? Don’t make me laugh.
To answer your question: Me and my buddies would likely be the first to die.
Ah, so death cult with no actual interest in accomplishing anything.
Well, thanks for admitting it
An armchair war commentaror? ON THE INTERNET?!?!?!?!?1one
It’s the exact war we spent 20 years fighting already. You don’t want your face on a network chart in a Battalion ops center. And the military wouldn’t split down the middle. It’s 50/50 blue/red but most of the conservatives in the military are wholly unimpressed with the far right. You shoot at an American and call it a war? They’re going to respond negatively.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Lol, yeah who could face the possibility that Americans might have firearms