As someone who spent a good chunk of my life in the military, I would never want to see an armed insurrection happen in my country. For one, the cost in fellow citizens' lives would be enormous. The devastation in infrastructure would, like-wise, be immense. I'm not sure the country could survive such a thing happening.
But when contemplating such a scenario, I think in the end the insurrectionists would win. It would not be easy or quick. It's not the advantage in tanks, artillery and aircraft that the government would have that would be the biggest factor to defeat. They can all be neutralized in different ways. It's the advantage in C3I for the government forces that would be the hardest thing to overcome. For the insurrectionists, any planning would have to be done well in advance while the government would have instantaneous communications. Throw in things like facial recognition programs, drones for recon and selective targeting, etc. when combined would make the task of insurrection monumentally difficult. I'm not even adding the the mindset of most of the populace that are adverse to risking anything of their own, much less their own skin.
However, to put down the insurrection, the government would have to curtail individual liberties to the point that even most ardent supporters would, I think, eventually turn against it. At that time, the armed part of the insurrection would have to best chance to overcome the government. Guerrilla attacks all across the country, completed by independent groups, would soon have the government forces chasing their own tail. It's at that point that the question will most likely be decided. If no outside group intervenes, the insurrectionists would probably eventually win. If they do, all bets are off. At least that's how I see it.
No one has yet mentioned the cartels or the gangs like MS13; they would be wild cards. Drug use might drop due to the military operations within CONUS but I'd think smuggling of contraband weapons and ammo would be in high demand. I would also expect the gangs to try to expand and consolidate their territories.
Any thoughts on this?
During the Russian Revolution, the Gulags created for political prisoners became breeding grounds for the Russian Mafia. I can see a parallel with MS-13 here. In WWII these gangsters were offered release to fight in the war, giving them military training and access to arms, leaving them very powerful afterwards. Our military supposedly has a significant number of Hispanic gang members in uniform.
However, in the Cuban Revolution, Castro pretty much drove out organized crime, which was flourishing on the island. Castro's government essentially became the only gang in the country. In WWII, Mussolini saw the Mafia as a threat to his power and effectively suppressed it. Ironically, the US secretly used the Mafia to help keep order in Italy right after the war.
During the Irish Revolution, Sinn Fein and the IRA were considered to be organized crime by the official British backed government, until they won, and then the "criminals" became the new government. (I recognize that is overly simplistic.)
So I guess it depends on what role criminal enterprises have before the conflict, what roles they find for themselves during the conflict and what their goals are for after the conflict.
I think one of the priorities on the insurgent force would be to go after those who caused the problem in the first place. Politicians. If enough congress people, their aides, familes, liberal judges and generals are taken out, the will to continue giving orders to what military will fight will be lost.
Interesting thread. Lots of valid points made for both sides of the argument.
At the end of the day civilians with rifles in open battle vs tanks, jets, bombs, and rockets don't stand a chance.
But in a scenario like the one proposed, the insurgents do not need the ability to take down an F-35.
They just need to know where the pilot's family lives.
- There are more pilots than planes. There are always backup pilots on the schedule.
- There would be no way to know who is on the schedule for any sortie.
- The op area is generally going to be a long way away from where the pilots live.
You would have to threaten all military pilot's families. That would get feds raining down on the problem, the families armed and/or moved and the pilots pissed off and wanting to do more damage than they are even supposed to. Doxing and threatening military families crosses a line that has consequences. Aviators are not so easily intimidated.
I wasn't speaking about 1 single pilot specifically...it could be a soldier who turns a wrench or a clerk who shuffles papers...
Making the families of combatants suffer is a tactic as old as warfare.
You just have to have the stomach to do it.
1. A bunch of us - armed citizens, are not as organized as US military is, we do not have plans, developed tactics, comand chain, coordination, central planning etc. Incidentally, developing tactics for our cause imminently has a goal to violently overthrow government which is outlawed as far as I know. That means, either those who develop it risk to end up in jail during peace time, or when goventment has already started war against people this tactics will have to be developed on the go.
2. If government starts war against citizens, it will not be an obvious war. It will be "door to door confiscation" of weapons in some small area. Does the whole citizenry uprise? No. We have seen it not happen during hurricane Katrina. And others. Then there will be anotehr small area. Does the whole citizenry uprise? No. And so on. At some point it will be obvious that that is the government war against people that is going on. By that time only third or the quater of armed citizenry will still be armed. How many will be in uprising? My estimate: less that 10 percent of those who are still armed. How many now participate in active defense of 2nd Amendment, which is less burdensome that war against tough enemy? Much smaller percentage will risk they hides to fight tyranny.
3. And finally when it is all out war between armed citizenry and US government armed subordinates (which includes all of them not just army). The government side has extremely better weapons (tanks, aviation, drones, and all other fancy stuff...), great tactics, coordination etc. And the institutions taht played all various scenarios and know how to react in each case.
And yes, I know there are oath keepers. However, they will be taken care of before anything big starts, so, to my regret, they will not matter for the side of citizens.
Alas, dark picture. Based on my own life experience, and observations.
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military. Guerrilla warfare as taught to some of us older types and used against a divided loyalty American Military; YES it would be possible. However it would destroy the country as we have known it. Would it it be worth it? That would be up to each and every American Citizen to answer.
Just like it came down to in the Soviet Union, how willing are soldiers willing to shoot down fellow Americans in mass?
Let Us Not Forget:
Veteran readers of THE NEW AMERICAN are vibrantly aware of the May 10, 1994 "Combat Arms Survey" administered to 300 active-duty Marines at the USMC’s Air-Ground Combat Center, Twenty-Nine Palms, California. Among its 46 questions, the Marines were asked if they would be willing to swear to a United Nations code of conduct and if they would fire on Americans who refused to turn over their privately owned weapons to the government. Other questions sought their approval or disapproval about their involvement in an assortment of operations far removed from proper military assignments, some of which would even place them under formal UN command.
Two Bears, would you please share the results of that survey?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk