Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

privately owned weapons as a way to fend off government action only work when you have access to comparable weaponry. if you believe that it is necessary for the people to be able to rise up against the government in an exercise of military force the only way that’s possible is for the people to be comparably armed

-1

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

yeah because the continental us is analogous to the jungles of vietnam and suburban america would definitely be a pitched battle

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

bro most countries aren’t Israel and wouldn’t nuke their own people the minute they smelled defeat

8

Anonymous #3 2w

you realize modern thermonuclear weapons can be used with great precision and on small scales, right? low yield thermonuclear weapons exist.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

You’re completely ignoring 1) the fact that asymmetric warfare has been highly effective in the past; and 2) the fact that basic incentive structures of domestic warfare dictate that nuclear force is a complete non-starter anyway. Real dictators aren’t James Bond villains, nukes are off the table unless they’re going insane from syphilis or some shit.

10

Anonymous OP 2w

brother if the population is in rebellion and you nuke the population you’re not even gonna get killed by the revolutionaries one of your own generals would blow your shit smoove off by the end of the day

17

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

point still stands for an f22. the degree of military superiority that the us government has over civilian arms makes armed resistance a futile act.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

This is the most historically illiterate take I’ve seen all week. Open literally any U.S. history book, I beg of you.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

as amethyst headphones already said, the United States sucks donkey dick when it comes to asymmetric warfare. Beyond that, you're acting like all of the United States has one biome. there are tons, with a far wider variety than Vietnam. you thought vietnam was a logistical nightmare? try adapting an army to fight in 5 or 6 different biomes across a whole continent.

6

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

i’m not talking about history, I’m talking about the implications of the modern technology our military has developed. I’m well aware that in the past armed resistance has been a viable option. My contention is that modern military technology has so dramatically shifted the scales it is no longer a possibility.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

And I’m saying that’s a bad opinion and you should replace it. Do you seriously believe think the world has changed that much in only 51 years? Like buddy, put down the performative cynicism for a second and actually think about how the real world works.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

The level of technology available to the military has absolutely changed dramatically in the past 51 years, and to ignore that fact seems laughable. The US military has shit we can’t even fathom and the level of military/weapons technology that civilians are freely permitted to own has not seen similar advancement. You can’t own an MQ9 Reaper.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

Oh no spooky robot plane🙄 that’s not meaningfully different from what the Viet Cong were up against, an airplane is an airplane. You actually think that somehow invalidates principles of asymmetric warfare? Even if you put aside the difficulty of controlling your own military, it would still be a complete shitshow.

2

Anonymous OP 2w

Neither did the Taliban, but last I checked they're running Afghanistan now 🤷‍♂️ You have fallen for the myth of American military invincibility, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. We're currently getting ground to a standstill by the Iranians because we lack the munitions capacity (despite spending TRILLIONS) and you come on here preaching Uncle Sam's Military Superiority? What a joke.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 2w

lmao i'm calling drones "spooky robot planes" from now on.

8

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

eh i think our current failure in Iran is arguably also related to it being a no-win conflict, and we’re in such a weak position diplomatically w/r/t Iran and that is coloring the nature of our military actions. I don’t subscribe to american military superiority in re organized military forces, but as for civilians, I’ll believe in a domestic american uprising toppling the military with i see it.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

the trump admin is in a weak diplomatic position largely because the US lacks the proper munitions to prosecute total war as it wishes it could. it's great you claim not to subscribe to Americans military superiority, but you continually cite the technical superiority of the US equipment as a reason why they would win. These two statements are somewhat odd with one another.

10

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

*at odds with one another. if you would try to argue that Americans are too apathetic for this kind of fight, then your argument might've held some water, but that's not how you played this. You've cited technological capabilities and natural environment, neither of which actually support your position.

10

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

I cite it as the reason they’d win against civilians, armed with civilian legal equipment. On Iran, the concept that we lack the munitions feels questionable. An analysis relying on the economic leverage Iran has through the strait and their ability to destabilize US power in the whole region offers much more insight imo. The only real win condition for the trump admin is the strait goes back to being open, as it was before the conflict, and every action makes our position worse.

-2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 2w

yeah the thermonuclear warhead part of it was dogshit from the get go. i stand by the american military having de facto superiority in a conflict with armed civilians using equipment legally purchasable by civilians tho.

3

Anonymous OP 2w

That's an unrealistic hypothetical. Civilian forces threatened by an aggressor eventually adapt and use military weapons. they improvise their own, they capture them from their opposing forces, and they get supplied them by outside allies. This also presupposes that every single member of the military stays loyal, and none of them decide to side with civilian forces. None of that is realistic.

7

Anonymous OP 2w

Historically false The US consitently gets BTFO by people with pickups and ak’s (I now see why we cant get the toyota Hilux is over)

6