Einherjar86
Active Member
Over three-hundred million versus less than five million? I don't agree; but I don't think this is a discussion worth having because, as you said, it's entirely hypothetical.
The pics thread
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Over three-hundred million versus less than five million? I don't agree; but I don't think this is a discussion worth having because, as you said, it's entirely hypothetical.
King Richard
Hello there
lol this is a hilariously dumb argument
Let me know when this rebellion begins because I'm getting the fuck out of here.
Let me know when this rebellion begins because I'm getting the fuck out of here.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Nice edit. Any amount of military firepower won't stand up against people who know their land, unless they blow everything to smithereens. The U.S. military threw itself at the Viet Cong. That worked really well.
King Richard
Hello there
Dak
mentat
Why is this argument still going in the pics thread?
#1: The "Well the US military has superduperbugzappers n NUKES makes your argument teh invalidz" is an argument generally pushed by people who know fuck all about military tech, tactics, history, and current events. Bottom line, if ANY government starts nuking shit to stop a rebellion, they already lost. Afghanistan is a bunch of ragtag, relatively unorganized locals with ancient soviet and chinese small arms who are in the process of wrapping up win #2 against a world super power. It's called Asymmetric warfare for a reason. All this fancy expensive bullshit is built specifically to take out other, similar, fancy expensive bullshit. It's not meant to take out 1 guy on the ground. It's horribly cost ineffective and tactically inefficient.
#2: While obviously more guns = more gun incidents, it doesn't mean an increase in incidents in general, nor does it make a value statement on the content or outcome of those incidents. National statistics show background checks have skyrocketed since 2007, while both violent crime in general AND murder specifically have declined year over year in the same time frame.
#1: The "Well the US military has superduperbugzappers n NUKES makes your argument teh invalidz" is an argument generally pushed by people who know fuck all about military tech, tactics, history, and current events. Bottom line, if ANY government starts nuking shit to stop a rebellion, they already lost. Afghanistan is a bunch of ragtag, relatively unorganized locals with ancient soviet and chinese small arms who are in the process of wrapping up win #2 against a world super power. It's called Asymmetric warfare for a reason. All this fancy expensive bullshit is built specifically to take out other, similar, fancy expensive bullshit. It's not meant to take out 1 guy on the ground. It's horribly cost ineffective and tactically inefficient.
#2: While obviously more guns = more gun incidents, it doesn't mean an increase in incidents in general, nor does it make a value statement on the content or outcome of those incidents. National statistics show background checks have skyrocketed since 2007, while both violent crime in general AND murder specifically have declined year over year in the same time frame.
King Richard
Hello there
I think maybe you need to do a bit more research brother. Over 1 million NVA died, and just over 50k Americans died. That's over a 20:1 kill ratio in favor of the US forces. Not only that, but this isn't the 1700's anymore, and it sure as shit isn't the 1960's either. The only thing that has happened since Vietnam is the training and experience has increased, technology has increased, and casualties on the part of the US military has substantially decreased (the death toll for America hasn't even eclipsed 7k in over 10 years fyi). They would rape us, plain and simple broseph.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Thanks for that brother, but you're not analyzing your data. The point is: it didn't matter how many NVA we killed, they kept fucking coming. Fortunately, we realized that before we utterly depleted every resource we had.
Dak
mentat
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
The fundamental misunderstanding in this scenario is the fact that everybody is the enemy. That means that the US military would have no use for discretion, like they did in Vietnam and do now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really think the US would have "lost" in Vietnam if they didn't have to give a shit about innocent people?
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think they ever cared too much about collateral damage. But I'm calling it quits; I really don't want to keep doing this, especially in the pics thread.
Dak
mentat
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
The hypothetical scenario, which has rightly been point out as stupid numerous times already, is the entirety of the non-military US vs the US military/government. So when I say "everybody is the enemy" I mean everybody that is in the US that is not the military/government. When you don't have to be careful with strategic, targeted attacks and can just bomb away at an entire landscape, it neutralizes any advantage guerrilla tactics give you. But I'm following Einherjar's lead here and not perpetuating this any more. I stand by the arbitrary belief that there's nothing militarily the US civilian population can throw at the government that the military can't stop, and I also reiterate that this has nothing to do with whether or not I think people should be allowed to have semi-autos and high capacity clips and whatnot. I was just debating an arbitrary hypothetical.
Dak
mentat
Of course, there is currently no state military or rag tag group that can go toe-to-toe with the US military. That's why no one does. You just walk around and then make a bomb out of every day products, or apply for a local police job and then commit "blue on green crime", etc.
As far as the blowing everything up goes, this is the same thing as the nuke scenario, even if nuclear weapons aren't used. Once you have to resort to indiscriminate destruction, you have already lost. King of nothing.
As far as the blowing everything up goes, this is the same thing as the nuke scenario, even if nuclear weapons aren't used. Once you have to resort to indiscriminate destruction, you have already lost. King of nothing.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
"Who am I?"
---
Post hotter babes.
Not hot!
See this.
|
|
|
v
So if you're not pro gun you're gay. Just so you know.
300 million?
Get rid of the kids, the old and then the unwilling and you're lucky if you get 10 million. And those would be militant fanatics and all the establishment would have to do is call them terrorists and the fight would be over before it started.
And I'm so not gay because I like a woman with boobs and a big gun!
Dak
mentat
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
Similar threads
