They don't need bug spray when they have canned sunshine.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
To date, canned sunshine has proven ineffective against the mosquito. Along with the Taliban, Iraq, and Vietnam for some reason. Why didn't it solve all those problems if it could handily solve a hypothetical US insurgency?
Bear in mind, going off the red vs. blue map, you're proposing the US nuke something like 90% of its landmass including most of its cropland, mines, forests, and other resources.
No, they'd just need to drop a few nukes on any logistical hubs that they lose control of or that act as rallying points of any effective opposition, and it'd send a big message about who is top dog.
I mean, am I the only one who remembers Swalwell threating the same shit a while back, and not seeming to play around. Any group that want to have a hope of taking control of meaningful territory and holding it in such a way they are more than an annoyance would also be enough of a threat to justify breaking out nukes.
A backwoods insurgency will not save anything, will justify even more tyrannical shit, and won't have the power to accomplish anything long term. Only open, standing, formal units and gov structures could offer a legit alternative, and the second one of those becomes a real threat, the gloves will come off.
This isn't 1776 or 1860, just having small arms and survival skills doesn't mean much if you want to the efforts to be more than a backwood insurgency and actually restore the Republic. Do not count of the military splitting in such a way that hardware is even close to even on both sides, and do not count on the AF or Space Force to be likely have many members side with the reds, and do not count on boomer crews to take orders from anyone other than DC.
Megadeath
Well-known member
In all those situations, the US military was practically invulnerable to the enemy, and inflicted wildly, grossly disproportionate casualties. They suppressed the enemies ability to even gather in numbers, let alone seize or govern territory. They also eventually left those areas for political reasons. Are you suggesting that the US armed forces would just give up fighting open insurrection in their homeland, and wander off somewhere else?
I also never said that they'd be capable of completely eradicating anyone and everyone who opposed them. In fact I specifically said they wouldn't.
What I am saying is the idea of ending up with anything like 2 equal sides, capable of laying seige to one another's strong points or interdicting their logistics, is unrealistic. In the same way that the Taliban is completely and utterly incapable of stopping the supply of American forces halfway across the world, whichever side doesn't have military backing in a second civil "war" would be just as impotent.
There will be no extended seiges lasting weeks, no battle lines, or drawing up of new militia. Because whoever has a couple a-10s left after the two armed forces factions smash each other will simply use them to turn any concentration of enemy forces into a fine red mist, and laugh at the idiots pointing their hunting rifles at them.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
I don’t know what’s sadder, that you think nukes are relevant in a civil war, or that you think that basically any navy ballistic missile subs, marine guard details and airforce pilots are left wing. Especially left wing enough to nuke the continental United States. FYI, the nukes in the silos can’t be aimed in-country without a fucking lot of work. To say nothing of the permissive action system making it pretty clear who gave the order.
Nukes have been the leftist magic wand for why wars are pointless for a whole long while now. They’ve been wrong every time in the past and you’re wrong now. As long as your right wing straw man you’re hot to nuke has positive control of a single missile sub, you’re blocked. Unless you think they don’t have the balls to launch a counter value strike. In which case, carry on I guess.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Really? It certainly seems to me that nukes making war pointless is the biggest reason that military confrontation with the soviet union or China never eventuated. Do you have another explanation?
King Arts
Well-known member
Everyone looks at the war the wrong way. They think it will either be a rehash of historical civil wars like the one in 1860 between the North and South, or they think it will be an Afghan/Vietkong style insurgency. Both of these are wrong. Though the second one has a better chance of being right. The problem with the first one is that modern weapons well their are highly maintance intensive, there is a reason in a full civil war scenario even the government forces end up looking no diffrent from the rebels if they can't import the materials they need from outside. And well within a year the parts for jet fighters, and all the modern tech will be running low.
For the second reason the problem is that Americans and all first world people in general are soft. Americans even if they support something won't be willing to go and martyr themselves, they support their political beliefs, but there is an argument to be made that if they had to face the casualties that the Taliban, or Vietkong faced when fighting a technologically superior foe they would fold. This is open to debate but the only way to see it would be to put it into practice.
But if Americans did have the conviction of the crazy Muslims instead of saying "behead those who insult Islam" they went "behead those who insult the constitution" then they do have some advantages that the other insurgencies that America faced did not have.
Those insurgents if they wanted to kill US troops would have to ambush them on patrols, since atttacking bases would get them crushed. But in a US civil war well the soldiers live close to you, thats a weak point right there they have their houses as your neighbors. Now the government COULD fix this by having it's forces segregated from the people. But this would basically make them a seperate warrior caste, and it might then be easier to weaken America since not everyone is on the same page, and many resources would have to be spent on pacifying the homeland.
Bacle this is ridiculously stupid.
If the government wanted to make a dictatorship and ordered the silos and subs to glass everything except Washington D.C. they would be the proud new owners of a giant steaming pile of burning shit.
The government needs soldiers and police humans with guns to go into buildings and arrest people, to stand at checkpoints and prevent people who are not allowed in from coming.
Tanks, jets, and missiles are for destroying other armies or large structures. They are useless at actually controlling what you need and managing it.
Again you need infantry, police, and people to be inspectors to actually rule anything.
Unlike current warfare, you won't be able to resupply quickly.
So why waste your ammo when you will need it for later. Destroy the enemy equipment....then you are out of ammo for it.
Megadeath
Well-known member
So... Your strategy would be "Don't attack the enemy, to conserve ammo." What exactly are you saving it for? Also, why would resupply take longer than usual, when the fighting is at the end of the shortest logistics pipeline the armed forces have ever had?
Because factories will be prime targets.
Why attack the weapon when you can get the factory..
These factories are also generally not bastions of defense.
King Arts
Well-known member
You do realize that if the logisctics are so close to where the fighting is happening, then those supplies can be destroyed. The Taliban, or Vietkong were never able to destroy America's ability to make jet fighters, apaches, abrams, etc.
But an American insurgency could assault or even destroy the factories that make it Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, all of those are based in and build in the US. So American troops whenever they were fighting a foreign war never had to seriously worry about equipment shortages because the most likely danger would be a strike, but that's unlikely because those factories are automated, and it's workers paid VERY well. So if the fighting is in Germany, or Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan then supplies can keep coming.
But well if the fighting is in America well then there is a risk of running out of critical components. Stuff like bullets are not an issue those are easy to make, but missiles, or jets. Those might be used more sparingly simply because wear and tear on those things would become a serious issue.
The wear and tear issue on the really high tech jets is an issue now those parts are expensive and delicate as fuck even drones are pretty pricy people just dont get just how expensive modern war is.
King Arts
Well-known member
Exactly even assuming no outside intervention (Russia supporting one side, China another, EU another)
if the side with the military can't decisively win in such a way that the rebels can't do anything. Then in a little over a year, there should be rough parity. Both sides would use lower tech tanks, and helicopters that don't require as much maintained. The only way I could see the government still have it's fancy toys is if they can put their factories in another nation. Then that nation has them by the balls though, that nation would have access to the schematics of the new toys and would basically be payed for the privalege of making them. So it is possible, but that strategy could also lead to more delegitimization where it looks like the government is being a puppet of whatever nation is doing that, it's relying on them to oppress it's people.
The main take away is that any civil war that the government can't put down quick is one that leads to them losing A LOT of power. They may still win and be in charge of the region called the United States of America, but if it is a 2 year war or more they are no longer a super power and probably a great power at best, at worst a complete basket case that is dependent on foreign help either economically or even militarily.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Because weapons can destroy factories better than the reverse? First you destroy the enemy's war fighting potential then you destroy their ability to replace it. If side A destroys side Bs factories, while side B destroys side As bases, side B can go after the enemy's factories at leisure, whilst side A is desperately trying to rush new production to replace what was lost. In the gulf wars, what were the initial targets? Or the Israeli six day war?
Sure, in an "even forces" scenario both sides are going to lose a lot of their production capacity very quickly, just like they're going to lose a lot of their actual forces. But by the end of the first week, one side will have a monopoly of military force. They'll be able to reduce any opposition industry to rubble, and defend at least some of their own. From there it can never get better for the side that have no aircraft or tanks left, whilst the other side can at least modestly rebuild.
Any civil war worth the name will completely destroy America. It would reduce them to a regional power in weeks at most, not years, and massively reduce government power and legitimacy the second it kicked off. If it somehow lasted more than a month or two America would be reduced to a third world nation dependent on aid just to survive.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
I'm pretty sure that in the event of a second American civil war, countries like China will end up supporting both sides; if for no other reason than to prolong the conflict in the hopes of further weakening America. They're not going to care who wins, so long as whatever comes out the other side no longer has the capability to threaten them.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
This entire post shows that you are completely detached from any understanding of how armed conflict actually works.
First off, if you think that either side ordering a nuke to be deployed in US territory would be a power move rather than complete suicide, you're nuts. It might scare some people into acquiescence, but every person who was wavering that was on your side has instantly left it, you might be killed for issuing the order, the order will probably be refused, and if it is carried out you have permanently ended any chance whatsoever of peaceful resolution to the conflict that doesn't have your death personally as a prerequisite.
There are tens to hundreds of thousands of people who might have otherwise avoided taking sides in a civil war, who will instead get in a truck and ride to wherever you are, with the sole purpose of killing you and everyone else involved in that order being carried out. Further, any political or cultural legitimacy your faction has whatsoever is completely destroyed. There is no longer any illusion that you will do anything except rule through raw, naked force.
Using WMDs in a civil war in America, is the surest way to guarantee that you can never win it.
Second off, 'backwoods insurgency' can mean very different things, and yes it can be exactly what ultimately topples a government. As others have pointed out, in order to effectively rule, you need not just tanks, APCs, jet craft and drones, you need soldiers and police men on the ground, keeping checkpoints, breaking into people's homes to drag them away in the night, and securing government buildings and infrastructure.
Those people are exposed. The technology does not exist to make common infantrymen bulletproof, and the closer to it you try to get with things like advanced bulletproof vests, the more expensive it is. Ten skilled woodsmen with rifles they've been shooting with for decades can make ninety percent of a rural county unrulable, inflict dozens to hundreds of losses, and force you to commit hundreds of troops just to keep the problem contained to that area.
You've heard of Simo Hayek? The USA has tens of thousands of shooters with perhaps half his skill, and a willingness to fight to the death to overthrow tyranny. It has hundreds of thousands of people with more mundane rifle skills who are willing to hide out in a cornfield or forest and pick off hostiles every now and then.
And when fighting in their native terrain, these people are very, very hard to find and kill. There are forest trails that do not appear on any map, and cannot be seen in aerial overflights because they aren't visible from anywhere but ground level. These are people that buy and wear camouflage colors that are damned effective at making you blend in literally because they just like the way it looks.
They already have forest cabins, insulated deer blinds, intimate knowledge of terrain, the ability to literally live off the land in any weather, and are friends or at least acquaintances with most other people in the area who have the same skills and abilities.
The 'shit's going down' to 'I'm in the forest ready to fight a near-perpetual war with only the stockpiles I already have on hand' time for people like this isn't measured in days or weeks, it's measured in minutes. If someone tried to become Dictator of Wisconsin when I was visiting my father up there, we could be out the door with enough equipment and supplies to last months in minutes.
And that's before you get into the fact that until you ID who is picking off your soldiers and police, these people can literally just keep living in their homes. They don't even need to disappear into the forest until you know who they are, and even if you manage to catch them somewhat by surprise at home, you're still looking at a serious gunfight while you lose people to try and take them down and out.
This was a serious problem for the Nazis to deal with during WWII. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was so bad it took major army formations to besiege and put down, and that was a legally oppressed minority that had been disarmed was trying to fight for freedom. Most hunters own between two and a dozen guns, and will happily pass them out to family and friends if shit goes down.
There's a numbers problem. There are somewhere over two hundred million adults in America, and less than two million soldiers. About 42% of households in America own guns as of 2020, which means you're looking at roughly eighty million armed civilians. Even if the entire US military went to the left (which it wouldn't), it would still be outnumbered by more than 40:1. Also, the majority of those military personnel are not line combatants, they're support personnel. They'll generally be trained for basic firearms use anyways, but they have no exceptional combat ability.
And even if the numbers were equal that might not be good enough. If you take a small rural town of a few hundred people, and send a few hundred infantry in to try to pacify/occupy it, between familiarity with terrain, prepared positions, and the red team vs blue team doctrinal advantages, here in America I'd bet against those few hundred infantry. The only real way they'd stand any kind of chance is if they start holding children hostage, and at that point, you're going to lose the war for other reasons.
So what will you do, bomb the town? If there's no warning, you'll probably kill most of the inhabitants; now what do you think the survivors are going to do? Most of them are going to fight you to the death for killing their family and friends. And unlike when fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, your airbases and military factories are within walking distance, and making bathtub-bombs is not actually very difficult.
The bottom line is that if you cannot break the enemy's will to fight by rolling in the tanks and bombing the center's of government with your superior air power, the battle is going to come down to infantry vs infantry. And the entire point of the Second Amendment is that when your population is heavily armed, a would-be dictator cannot win that infantry vs infantry fight.
You are completely wrong here. It's one thing if a backwoods insurgency in 5-6 places is picking off a few men every week.
It's another thing if hundreds of counties across forty different states are having backwoods insurgencies, and you're losing thousands of men every week.
You cannot sustain those kinds of losses. And in the modern day, you can't hide those kinds of losses either. You do not understand the sheer scale of the difficulty involved in trying to subjugate the US, and you further do not understand the scale of the morale problem involved in trying to force the military and police to do so.
There are 'no go zones' in some cities in Europe, where the police aren't willing to try to enforce the law. These are in nations where gun ownership is either very difficult or outright illegal, but yet crime there is still so bad that the police have given up. What do you think is going to happen when the majority of your nation's territory is populated by angry civilians who literally have ten times as many guns as you do?
If a County Sheriff decides to knuckle under to tyrannical state authorities, and try to enforce their will, what does he do when every other arrest he sends deputies out on is shot dead? When there's periodic snipings of officers walking out of the sherrif's headquarters?
This is not a problem that having tanks can solve. Tankers have to get in and out of their tanks, and all a sniper has to do is wait. This is not a problem that jet fighters or bombers can solve, because they can't find the bloody target. This is a problem that top-end extremely-expensive satellite surveillance can solve... if the terrain is open and it isn't cloudy. This is a problem that drones can't solve, because drones are a lot bigger and more expensive than skeet, just as fragile, and easier to hit.
All of those measures can help make things more difficult for bushwhackers, but they can't stop them, and every time that a patrol of infantry or police is completely killed, the state loses all their equipment, and the insurgents gain all those resources.
How long does it take before the Sheriff calls it quits? Before the chief of police calls it quits? Before the State National Guard members decide they'd rather sit things out than be added to the steadily-growing list of casualties and dead? Before the army decides the same?
If a tenth of the political right pitted itself against the entirety of the US military and police establishment, it would probably win. Something you need to keep in mind here, is that those who will resist violently, are going to by the nature of who they are also be those most likely to be military veterans, lifelong hunters, and other people who have experience in combat, outdoorsmanship, or both.
Whereas on the political left, who are the fanatics driving the conflict? People who don't just not own guns, but think it's immoral to own them. Who think that the police should be dissolved. Who have contempt for the military.
You claim that the military would split mostly left, but you fail to understand that while there's a lot of flag officers with political ambitions, the institution as a whole skews more conservative, and the combat arms in particular skew drastically conservative, for the simple reason that most leftists don't want to be in the military.
Among the left, those who are likely to own guns, are those the least likely to be politically radical enough to take up arms to try to oppress the rest of the country. The very fact that they are gun owners means they've broken out of at least part of the leftist bubble. Sure, some still will, but whereas on the right gun owners are the most likely to be willing to fight and die for their cultural and political cause, on the left those owning guns are the least likely to be willing to kill others for a tyrannical state.
Last edited:
That's basically the same thing everywhere. If you deploy WMDs, you will lose all goodwill and support from everyone but the most fanatic, die-hard loyalists. The whole international community is going to turn against you in an instant.
You guys sure are lucky to have all the advantage that you do.
The majority of Canada would fall to any internal/external invader in months if not weeks. Vast majority of the population and virtually all the industrial infrastructure is in the South, close to the US-Canada born. Vast majority of the arable land is in the South as well.
Our military has been gutted by budget cuts, woke nonsense, and witch hunts for perpetrators of "sexual harassment".
If push comes to shove, we'll be occupied within the year.
Not to mention the fact that most veterans in USA are center right.
US military would be defecting wholesale over to the Right if the Left tried to order them to fire on US civilians.
Last edited:
Canada's anti-invasion plans are pretty much the same as a good portion of Europe's.
Go to the US and beg for military aid.