Posted on Mar 26, 2018
5
5
0
I was part of a hotly debated issue that both sides are very passionate about earlier, and the issue of defending ourselves against the government came up. That got me thinking, could we really stop them if they turned our own Armed Forces on us?
Honestly, I don't think that would ever happen. It's not a lawful order and I am sure pretty much all of our service member would turn their weapons on our politicians. But lets say for arguments sake, that they did follow that order..........
We, better than any civilian know the capabilities of our Armed Forces. We may have the numbers, but they have the technology. This isn't Star Wars, we aren't Ewoks. This isn't the movies, we would be fighting the most formidable military on the planet with small arms and homemade explosives.
We would be bugs on a windshield.
Now, there is an argument to be had if they only turned our civilian government agencies on us. FBI, DEA, ATF, local and state police. We would stand a chance, a pretty decent chance I think.
Honestly, I don't think that would ever happen. It's not a lawful order and I am sure pretty much all of our service member would turn their weapons on our politicians. But lets say for arguments sake, that they did follow that order..........
We, better than any civilian know the capabilities of our Armed Forces. We may have the numbers, but they have the technology. This isn't Star Wars, we aren't Ewoks. This isn't the movies, we would be fighting the most formidable military on the planet with small arms and homemade explosives.
We would be bugs on a windshield.
Now, there is an argument to be had if they only turned our civilian government agencies on us. FBI, DEA, ATF, local and state police. We would stand a chance, a pretty decent chance I think.
Posted in these groups: 
Civilians
Civilians
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
8
8
0
I see this counter argument often from folks arguing against firearms ownership. I don't think there is any question that our military would have a distinct advantage. The deterrent is the fact that it would be slaughtering it's own citizens. Moms, dads, borhers, sisters, friends, etc. The optics are bad and it would signal the absolute end of the US as a republic. So, to answer the original question: military would win, but at what cost?
My $0.02
My $0.02
(8)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
MCPO (Join to see) Would the military win? That would depend on your definition of win. The military would actually lose because it would end up dissolving and that would be the cost, and in that regard it would be a massive loss.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
If I recall correctly, there are more veterans alive today than there are active duty service members and I would bet cash that they would defend their families as well as a small portion of the civilian population with firearms. "We the people" are the militia.
(2)
(0)
MCPO (Join to see)
Cpl Tom Surdi - I didn't take it that way! I was merely using my discussions with my left leaning friends as an example. We good, CPL!
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Cpl (Join to see) - I completely agree, and I would be there right along with them to the bitter end. I'd probably get killed, but it would be worth it.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I think it would be more in the vein of Vietnam or Iraq. The military could win every single battle and still lose due to attrition. The military would see fewer people volunteering and you couldn't plug holes in formations from losses. Also unlike previous wars if one tank was destroyed along with its crew there would be 2 tanks fully crewed to replace it, if a tank was destroyed that unit may never see another fully crewed tank again. If a resistance could survive and grow in their numbers at a more rapid rate than the military who at this point would be seen as tyrannical it could easily win. Of course on top of that there are something like 200 million privately owned guns while the military has way, way fewer.
(4)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
SPC David Willis - I agree. However, I think the conflict would divide the world. Countries like Canada, France and England would side with the civilian population. But countries like Russia and China would probably side with the government.
(0)
(0)
SPC David Willis
Cpl Tom Surdi - I'm not sure if they would, think about how bad the situation would have to be for the military to be deployed against their own people. This would be an instance where the government would almost have to consider glassing the middle of the country and eradicating its entire population. Russia and China may be ruthless in how they rule but if they weren't smart they wouldn't be around any more. Even they would realize a tyrannical government in a world power willing to eradicate its people is bad for the world and would (I believe) side with the people. Who really knows but its a very interesting topic.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
SPC David Willis - I know, there are a lot of variables to take into account. On one hand, a civil war would cripple our economy, sending the world economy into a tailspin, possibly producing a world wide depression that could possibly destroy smaller governments of the world. On the other, a civil war could cause some countries to side with the government in hopes that when they win they will have ingratiated themselves to that government causing them to possibly reap benefits afterwards. There is just so many variables, it's a true intellectual exercise.
(1)
(0)
SPC David Willis
Cpl Tom Surdi - I would love to see a good book or movie made about the idea, but I'm afraid it would be hard to make it in this climate without pissing off one side of the political isle for a perceived association to real life people or events.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
less than 2 million service members including reserves. 320M Americans, estimated that 25% own firearms (approximately 4~ each).
We can do a quality to quantity analysis, but one of the major advantages codified in law is that the government is prohibited from having a registry... for a reason.
The Citizenry wouldn't last long against an "Offensive" government force... but how long have we been fighting an Insurgency in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. How well do you think that would go on US Soil?
We can do a quality to quantity analysis, but one of the major advantages codified in law is that the government is prohibited from having a registry... for a reason.
The Citizenry wouldn't last long against an "Offensive" government force... but how long have we been fighting an Insurgency in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. How well do you think that would go on US Soil?
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Cpl Tom Surdi - "Most" would.. But even if 2%.... that's 6.4M... 3x as many as we have troops.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tom Surdi
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Yes, but you are assuming that our naval and air forces wouldn't join in the fight. We wouldn't only be fighting ground forces. Naval forces would easily decimate all coastal civilian forces since we have NO opposition to them, forcing them into the midwest. Air forces could then bomb and coordinate pinpoint strikes on civilian strongholds. Sorry, but a civilian aviator in a Cessna isn't going to stand a chance against a Raptor. I think that by the time a true ground war was needed, too many civilian fighters would be dead or in hiding for the ground war to truly matter.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
No assumption was made other than our military would have to pick and choose targets. The advantage insurgents have is “natural camouflage.” They look like everyone else. The second our government starts bombing “strongholds” it has already lost.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
Cpl Tom Surdi - There are several flaws in this argument for naval forces and for air support.
The USS Cole was taken out by a small civilian craft. Though sailors are trained(?) on these types of scenarios, enough of the individuals and forces that they would be facing were trained on the exact same thing and have the knowledge to circumvent many of the preventative measures.
As far as military air and aircraft support goes, once they have no fuel, they are a ground target. Access to fuel can be easily cut off and immediate supplies can readily be destroyed. And for immediate refueling needs tanker aircraft do not sit on the ground with a load of fuel, they are usually empty.
The USS Cole was taken out by a small civilian craft. Though sailors are trained(?) on these types of scenarios, enough of the individuals and forces that they would be facing were trained on the exact same thing and have the knowledge to circumvent many of the preventative measures.
As far as military air and aircraft support goes, once they have no fuel, they are a ground target. Access to fuel can be easily cut off and immediate supplies can readily be destroyed. And for immediate refueling needs tanker aircraft do not sit on the ground with a load of fuel, they are usually empty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google