• Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yeah this is similar to what I always tell these idiots. "You all know the government has tanks right. How many tanks y’all got? Three Broncos, an F-1f0, and a tractor? I’m sure those will hold up just fine to 120 mm cannon.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      To play devil’s advocate, the US is enormous with over 330 million people. The current military strength is roughly a few million, including civilians and contractors. Additionally, there are roughly about 4,000 main battle tanks in service. There’s maybe a couple thousand fighter jets and bombers combined. Keep in mind, a lot of the US military is abroad, especially our combat ready equipment.

      Now, try to spread all of that out over roughly 4 million square miles. Hell, LA itself is around 470 square miles with almost 10 million people. The military would be idiotic to just blindly carpet bomb everything, since y’know, soldiers have families living all over the US, too. Not great for morale. Not to mention, the economy is pretty essential to keeping the machines of war going. Also food. And fuel. And infrastructure for logistics. And medicine. Etc, etc.

      A civil war would not be cut and dry, regardless of how well armed and trained the formal military is. It’s why China tries to keep an iron tight grip on its mass surveillance program to squash uprisings before/as soon as they start (and they periodically have them, think there’s been one or two in the last decade). That’s what the US is also trying to do. They call it antiterrorism precautions and other bullshit, but it’s to keep all of us underfoot so no one is able to start an effective movement against the State.

      • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        Considering the observed behaviour of the self designated militias in the US, the army would only need to say that there’s a gathering of whatever group the militia opposes on main street and then gun down anyone that shows up in tactical gear. Even without the hyperbole, 2A people are too damaged by their desire to be in their personal action movie to be effective in any kind of war.

        • bassomitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s pretty funny, and it’d probably work the first few times, if not more lol. I agree with the last part for most of them. But, in a real civil war, it’d include people that aren’t completely idiotic. Like I said, there hasn’t been a quick, clean civil war ever fought in history. Those lessons are useful to take heed of.

          • yeather@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Quick, clean civil wars are usually called a coup d’état. Quick purges of the leadership, replacement with people loyal to you, and then life continues on. If your coup fails and you have enougj resources to continue the fight then you get to civil war.

      • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        What number of those people are of military age, though, fit, able, willing to upend their lives and would support whatever cause? A lot less than 330 million, I’d guess.

        • bassomitron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          They don’t have to be fighters for it to be a headache. During a civil war you have to deal with feeding, securing, housing, etc. all of those people when areas inevitably collapse or are taken over for military operations and people evacuate (i.e. refugees).

          Then there are people who do support whichever side and do small acts of sabotage, espionage, etc.

    • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Try running tanks or planes without fuel, parts or ammo production. Covid was a little inconvenience compared to the supply chain nightmare a war could bring. It takes a TON of upkeep to keep a military rolling.

      And to be fair the taliban never had conventional air support either. And Ukraine has proven that commercial drones can be just as lethal.

      • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Try running tanks or planes without fuel, parts or ammo production. Covid was a little inconvenience compared to the supply chain nightmare a war could bring. It takes a TON of upkeep to keep a military rolling.

        What does this even mean? That a private citizen is going to have better access to fuel, parts and ammo than the government?!?

        • SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No, but the US military has never had their homeland logistics fucked with in recent history. Sure you can’t easily destroy a Bradley APC, but it needs fuel that happens to be stored and transported in ways that are not as resistant to attack. And when the fuel runs out many vehicles are no longer useful in combat.

          Or spare parts. Germany got their industries bombed like crazy in WW2. Even though their stuff was better on paper they didn’t have the parts to keep combat effective. Ask any veteran how reliable military vehicles are without constant maintenance.

          This is hypothetical and all, but it’s not that big of a stretch of the imagination to see any American insurgency becoming a real pain in the ass for the military over months and years. And unlike Afghanistan they can’t simply withdraw when they’ve had enough.

    • Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      So MAGA is not the side I would take in a civil war, even if I were an American, however: “Experience has shown that attacks against tanks with close combat weapons by a sufficiently determined man will basically always succeed.”

      Look at the early stages of the Ukraine war Russia had in many heavy equipment categories a 5:1 superiority, Ukraine had comparitively few Tanks/AFVs/Aircrafts/Artillery/etc… yet still held it’s own in no small part due to trenchlines of conventional boot-on-floor infantry men, mines, cheap drones, shoulder launched atgms and good motivation/organisation.

      • Etterra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re right, but bubba the gravy seal is not a sufficiently determined enemy. They tend to either bunker down and go out fighting or just get caught.