Could the people stand a chance against the military?

[orangesunset]

Never under estimate the power of the people. It would not be easy, I give you that.... but I guarantee that if the people were to go up in arms.... they have a stronger chance of winning then the military. Anger is a powerful ally.

Tell that to the native American, he was extremely resourceful, and was pretty angry about getting stuck in a reservation. How the police and military deal with large scale riots and protests sums it up. Cities require water, electricty and food. The military cuts off the water, electricty and stops food. In a place like LA, how long can you live without these things ?

 

[KimberlyD]

Tell that to the native American, he was extremely resourceful, and was pretty angry about getting stuck in a reservation. How the police and military deal with large scale riots and protests sums it up. Cities require water, electricty and food. The military cuts off the water, electricty and stops food. In a place like LA, how long can you live without these things ?

The native American's were in the stone age compared to the European Armies, they were using bows and arrows... the Europeans came over with guns from the start. There is also the factor of the larger portion of native American's that were peaceful and did not put up much of a fight. Not to mention... there were more of them then there were of the natives. Another thing is that whole tribes worked against their native breathoren. In the case the US citizens vs Military.... the sell ar15's and all kinds of arsenal that can be bought on the open market here. Citizens have the ability to get many of the weapons and equipment that the military has (with a few exceptions of course) so it is more evenly matched in the realm of technology. Riots are primarily unorganized.... easier to control. Protest are more organized, but they typically are meant to be peaceful so the protestors are not prepared for a fight. Naturally it is easier to reign in the situation when dealing with these type of circumstances, especially when given a tight area where cutting off supplies is easily done.... but if you go on a national level... good luck on that one. To large of an area and to hard to maintain. Now if we are talking about smaller areas such as a city or town... then yeah, my vote would swing more so to the military. But if you are talking on the broad sense of the nation.... there are more civilians then military and the civilians have the right of way in my opinion.

 

[orangesunset]

Now if we are talking about smaller areas such as a city or town... then yeah, my vote would swing more so to the military. But if you are talking on the broad sense of the nation.... there are more civilians then military and the civilians have the right of way in my opinion.

Your Native American analogy actually proves my point, the natives where not defeated militarily. First all the buffalo where killed so the natives would not have a food source, as a result they where forced to move onto reservations. Once there where there, it was game over.

Depends on the state. The state of California grows a lot of food, but it relies heavily on importing water from other areas. I can't remember how big the aqueducts are that bring water to LA. You cut off the electricity, food and water supply people are screwed. Once that happens, it is game over.

 

[kestas57]

What the army has and the civilians don't is technology and advanced weaponry. Sure, the people might have a lot of firearms in the US, but as a whole they lack training, artillery, machinery, air force and navy. Despite this, the people could still inflict pretty big damage to the army just because of the size of the population in question.

 

[KimberlyD]

Your Native American analogy actually proves my point, the natives where not defeated militarily. First all the buffalo where killed so the natives would not have a food source, as a result they where forced to move onto reservations. Once there where there, it was game over.

Depends on the state. The state of California grows a lot of food, but it relies heavily on importing water from other areas. I can't remember how big the aqueducts are that bring water to LA. You cut off the electricity, food and water supply people are screwed. Once that happens, it is game over.

Actually it doesn't prove your point. You are comparing apples to oranges. The Native American's were socially, economically, population size, and weapons years behind those who came to the "new world". They did not stand a chance in any aspect.

Citizens today have access to the same technology as the military, have the ability to store food more efficiently and in larger amounts (not to mention they are able to grow and raise food all over the nation without the government even knowing about it), and they are in greater numbers then those in the military.

Then there is another factor you have to keep in mind when dealing with numbers.... how many soldiers do you think will follow the governments demands to shoot down their own families if those families rise against them. I don't know of many. They would cross over to fight with the citizens rather then kill their own families if it came down to a civil war again.

As for a foreign invader.... well... We did not gain the term "Crazy Americans" for nothing. We would blow up our own nation then let someone else take it from us.

How many Americans agree with this?

As for a major city being at siege... I can agree with that because most city goers here have no concept of fending for themselves. They buckle easily because they have lived primarily pampered lives. But that only makes up for 1/8th the population of the US... or was it less?

 

[Goblinforhire]

Are you kidding me! The people will not stand a chance against the military. Use the formula of Probability to figure that out.

Amen! These are trained soldiers with advanced eavesdropping methods, they'd probably find out about the 'revolution' within the first minutes of the planning stages and show up at your doorstep with 'are you kidding me?' expressions on their faces.
They're probably running out of places to store all the weaponry they have. So no, the people do not have any chance at all against them.

 

[goncalogdct]

I don't think people would stand a change, simply because, with today's weaponry the military would simply be too much for the people to take. Moreover, lets not forget we are talking about trained people here, just as some of us referred just above. even if they were outnumbered I don't think people would stand a change.

 

[Gelsemium]

I agree that people don't stand a chance against the military, I recall the problem in China decades ago where thousands were killed due to a decision from the government. Those with weapons always win.

 

[KimberlyD]

They said the same thing when the British soldiers came over and fought with the newly forming US. Who won that war, the trained soldiers with better equipment and weapons. They had the numbers, the backing.... but who won that war??? The people, Not the soldiers.

Ye who have but little faith. I stand strongly by the citizens. If a war ever broke out between soldiers and citizens, I guarantee... the citizens will win. I even spoke with my military friends (most of them are Viet Nam and Korean War veterans... but they are some tough sons of guns...) and they all agree with me to. If it came down to citizens vs soldiers... soldiers are FUBARed. As for trained soldiers.... I took down four "trained" soldiers in a fight years ago when they got a little "snotty" at a friends house and I am a civilian with little to no training. Just because you are trained does not mean anything. My father trained troops and spent 5 years in Viet Nam. Was a well decorated soldier as well, Bronze Star and all. He used to tell me that when fighting against another soldier... the fight is fair. When against citizens.... the citizens have the upper hand. When in Viet Nam he did not have problems with the Viet Cong and such.... they had more issues with the citizens. We sure as hell did not win that war. We got out of is yes, but we had our asses handed to us... not by the soldiers, but by the citizens. The Philippians, same thing.... it was citizens not soldiers that put us out. Both of these nations were in the stone age technologically compared to the US soldiers, but they still won. It has been proven over and over again through out history, just look it up for yourselves. Rome, Greece, England, France, the United States..... its all there. Citizen revolts and uprisings... the soldiers may have taken a chunk, but they in the long run lost.

 

[kjonesm1]

I would hope that if the government tried to implement marshal law our country would be able to defend itself, but in truth I am sure they have been preparing for any sort of uprising from the people. We must adhere to strict gun laws while the government has an unlimited surplus and tons of heavy armory that the average citizen has no access to. If the citizens of the United States had to defend themselves against the government we would stand absolutely no chance.

 

[Gelsemium]

They said the same thing when the British soldiers came over and fought with the newly forming US. Who won that war, the trained soldiers with better equipment and weapons. They had the numbers, the backing.... but who won that war??? The people, Not the soldiers.

Ye who have but little faith. I stand strongly by the citizens. If a war ever broke out between soldiers and citizens, I guarantee... the citizens will win. I even spoke with my military friends (most of them are Viet Nam and Korean War veterans... but they are some tough sons of guns...) and they all agree with me to. If it came down to citizens vs soldiers... soldiers are FUBARed. As for trained soldiers.... I took down four "trained" soldiers in a fight years ago when they got a little "snotty" at a friends house and I am a civilian with little to no training. Just because you are trained does not mean anything. My father trained troops and spent 5 years in Viet Nam. Was a well decorated soldier as well, Bronze Star and all. He used to tell me that when fighting against another soldier... the fight is fair. When against citizens.... the citizens have the upper hand. When in Viet Nam he did not have problems with the Viet Cong and such.... they had more issues with the citizens. We sure as hell did not win that war. We got out of is yes, but we had our asses handed to us... not by the soldiers, but by the citizens. The Philippians, same thing.... it was citizens not soldiers that put us out. Both of these nations were in the stone age technologically compared to the US soldiers, but they still won. It has been proven over and over again through out history, just look it up for yourselves. Rome, Greece, England, France, the United States..... its all there. Citizen revolts and uprisings... the soldiers may have taken a chunk, but they in the long run lost.

Yes, I can understand this, but at the same time we are not living in the times we used to and I feel that technology these days makes a bigger difference. Sure, a resistance can remain, but the war is lost.

 

[KimberlyD]

But citizens have access to that same technology. That is what I am trying to relay to you guys.... I don't know about other countries but I can go down the street to the local Walmart and purchase a semi automatic rifle in the blink of an eye. You go online and all the components you need to create bombs and such are right there and can be shipped to your door. I can go on a Government auction site right now and if I had money I could buy a tank, fighter jet, rockets... you name it. Access is the key. The citizens back then did not have access to any of this and yet they were still able to win with just what they had. If they could win a battle with pitch forks and muskets against trained soldiers who had access to deadlier weapons then they can win against soldiers now because they have access to the same weapons as the soldiers have. And as I said before... if a civil war happens between citizens and the government, the government will find themselves with a very small military to work with because 90% of those soldiers are going to fight with their families not against them... so those trained soldiers have now become part of the resistance.

 

[Urhin]

I don't think so. With the U.S. military in possession of several high-powered tanks, drones, fighter planes, war ships and nuclear weapons, how exactly can ordinary citizens with no working knowledge of warfare beat them? Perhaps if all the non-military geniuses huddle together and formulate a set of winning strategies for all civilians to follow, then they may stand a chance. WOW, LOL, StarCraft and all other gamers are most welcome too. This is their chance to put to use whatever tactics they learned playing those games.

Actually many Americans own firearms and are capable of using them. (Hence the many gun law controversies). There are also paramilitary groups that equip and train their people. Sure they may not be as effective as the United States Army, but many of them are heavily armed with high powered rifles, bazookas and grenades.

I agree with orangesunset. Military hardware is only one small component. When it comes to winning a war, the will to fight is equally if not more important. If your soldiers aren't willing to fire on civilians, there's no rifle in the world that will make them do so. Advanced military hardware also becomes useless when fighting against groups that use guerilla tactics. What such groups often do is hide amongst the civilian population and take out key targets. Since no army will simply massacre the entire civilian population (it's not only inhumane, it's also unwise because it means you lose the civilians' support) it's almost impossible to eradicate guerilla groups.

 

[KimberlyD]

Actually many Americans own firearms and are capable of using them. (Hence the many gun law controversies). There are also paramilitary groups that equip and train their people. Sure they may not be as effective as the United States Army, but many of them are heavily armed with high powered rifles, bazookas and grenades.

I agree with orangesunset. Military hardware is only one small component. When it comes to winning a war, the will to fight is equally if not more important. If your soldiers aren't willing to fire on civilians, there's no rifle in the world that will make them do so. Advanced military hardware also becomes useless when fighting against groups that use guerilla tactics. What such groups often do is hide amongst the civilian population and take out key targets. Since no army will simply massacre the entire civilian population (it's not only inhumane, it's also unwise because it means you lose the civilians' support) it's almost impossible to eradicate guerilla groups.

Exactly. We have seen this in Viet Nam with the guerilla groups that were attacking US soldiers. It was the reason the US could not win that war.

There are many "Militia" groups (List of U.S. Militia Groups) here and a large portion of them are actually run by ex-military soldiers. They train their members like they were trained themselves. So yeah... the military is FUBARed if they went against the citizens of the US.

 

[allenrexler]

I think at this point, there isn't much you could do. But you never know. If the government wanted to blow it's Country to smithereens they could certainly do so, but would they want to? I think 3D printed weapons may be a game changer. That is if governments don't mess with the free Internet...