I sure hate America Bashers..... Arghhh.:mad:

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira

I think you've been watching way too much Red Dawn, Spartan. I don't think civilian guns would to anything to Soviet vehicles and soldiers. The police departments could probably fight but the civilians? No. Like MT2008 said, American civilians won't be able to endure all the horrible shit a guerrilla sees and has to do in a daily basis. And the way guerrillas have to live would probably kill a huge number of those "freedom fighters". American civilians just wouln't be able to take it.

2 things

1st of all Police Guns and Civilian Guns are almost identical

2nd of all you would not fight with Civilian guns for the entire conflict, you would use the Civilian guns to ambush/kill Soviet troops in order to take their weapons(which would be capable of disabling their vehicles/armor and whatnot)

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

2 things

1st of all Police Guns and Civilian Guns are almost identical

2nd of all you would not fight with Civilian guns for the entire conflict, you would use the Civilian guns to ambush/kill Soviet troops in order to take their weapons(which would be capable of disabling their vehicles/armor and whatnot)

Oliveria is wrong; cops would not be any better as guerrillas than civilians. And it has NOTHING to do with the types of guns.

Like way too many pro-RKBAers, you are thinking about this way too much in terms of weaponry. If you wanted to fight a guerrilla war against either an invading army or a totalitarian government (or both), guns are just about the last thing to be concerned about. I'd worry a little more about your ability to survive outside of modern civilization - no electricity, scarce food, poor weather - for a start. Also what would happen if you ever got captured - how well can you withstand torture? Start thinking about those things, and start thinking about how many Americans besides yourself would fare any better - after spending all of their lives living better than anyone else in the world. On the list of things to think about in preparation for guerrilla war, guns should be about 100th, if that. (And no, that's not an exact scientific estimate, but you get my point).

Another thing I find ridiculous is pro-RKBAers always claim that criminals can always get guns on the black market, but civilians can't. I do hope you realize that, assuming civilians were willing to form militias to overthrow an oppressive government, international arms dealers are almost always the first people to take advantage of wars nowadays? Sometimes, even rival governments are willing to serve the same purpose. I think it rather neatly undermines some of the basic premises of pro-gun arguments.

But again, the big "if" here is whether or not the average American would really be willing to become a guerrilla, or at least provide support to the guerrillas. I'm rather doubtful that would happen. Even those survivalist nutcases are not guerrilla material, no matter what they believe.

[Ace Oliveira]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Oliveria is wrong; cops would not be any better as guerrillas than civilians. And it has NOTHING to do with the types of guns.

Like way too many pro-RKBAers, you are thinking about this way too much in terms of weaponry. If you wanted to fight a guerrilla war against either an invading army or a totalitarian government (or both), guns are just about the last thing to be concerned about. I'd worry a little more about your ability to survive outside of modern civilization - no electricity, scarce food, poor weather - for a start. Also what would happen if you ever got captured - how well can you withstand torture? Start thinking about those things, and start thinking about how many Americans besides yourself would fare any better - after spending all of their lives living better than anyone else in the world. On the list of things to think about in preparation for guerrilla war, guns should be about 100th, if that. (And no, that's not an exact scientific estimate, but you get my point).

Another thing I find ridiculous is pro-RKBAers always claim that criminals can always get guns on the black market, but civilians can't. I do hope you realize that, assuming civilians were willing to form militias to overthrow an oppressive government, international arms dealers are almost always the first people to take advantage of wars nowadays? Sometimes, even rival governments are willing to serve the same purpose. I think it rather neatly undermines some of the basic premises of pro-gun arguments.

But again, the big "if" here is whether or not the average American would really be willing to become a guerrilla, or at least provide support to the guerrillas. I'm rather doubtful that would happen. Even those survivalist nutcases are not guerrilla material, no matter what they believe.

Thanks for pointing out that i was wrong.

Matt is right (as always) most of the stuff guerrillas endure would break the mind of your average american. There is also the issue of military vehicles. If the Soviets invaded, you can be damm sure they wouln't give a shit about collateral damage. MiGs would have been bombing entire towns and citys that had anything that could help the US Government. Hell, they could even fire bomb citys, if the Soviet had napalm or the something like it. There is also training. A lot of people will learn how to reload weapons and all that, but what about knowing how to fight the enemy? Especially without vehicles. The arms dealers could sell vehicles to the rebels and maybe even train them, but i doubt that. Some one correct me if i'm wrong.

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Also what would happen if you ever got captured - how well can you withstand torture?

That's not really a big issue.

The average CIA agent could only withstand 7-14 seconds of waterboarding (which is mild torture if any)

[predator20]

Originally Posted by MT2008

But again, the big "if" here is whether or not the average American would really be willing to become a guerrilla, or at least provide support to the guerrillas. I'm rather doubtful that would happen. Even those survivalist nutcases are not guerrilla material, no matter what they believe.

If an average person is fighting to survive, American or any other. They may not want to become a guerilla. But will if they had to in order to survive. A person can adapt easy when it's their own life at stake. It may be a miserable way to live, but better than being dead or worse a prisoner.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira

If the Soviets invaded, you can be damm sure they wouln't give a shit about collateral damage. MiGs would have been bombing entire towns and citys that had anything that could help the US Government. Hell, they could even fire bomb citys, if the Soviet had napalm or the something like it.

Even though the Russians are more ruthless than their Western counterparts (as evidenced by case studies from the Hungarian Uprising to the recent Chechen Wars), I don't think they'd bomb entire towns and cities.

All invading armies recognize that they need the cooperation of the local civilian population, unless they're willing to resort to plain genocide. Bombing cities with intent to kill lots of civilians is not SOP nowadays, at least not for major states like Russia (if you're talking Third World hellholes like Sudan, that's another story, but those are the kinds of countries that could never invade the U.S. even if they wanted to, so it's a moot point).

Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira

There is also training. A lot of people will learn how to reload weapons and all that, but what about knowing how to fight the enemy? Especially without vehicles. The arms dealers could sell vehicles to the rebels and maybe even train them, but i doubt that. Some one correct me if i'm wrong.

Training, again, has nothing to do with weapons in guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla tactics are pretty simple - hit-and-run attacks, IEDs, things that wear the enemy down. The big challenge is endurance of extremely bad circumstances. Guerrillas win when they outlast the conventional forces by denying them victory, so that the enemy is forced to cut their losses. Poor people who have lived in squalor (or awful terrain) can take this kind of warfare. Americans, on the other hand, can't.

Originally Posted by AdAstra2009

That's not really a big issue.

The average CIA agent could only withstand 7-14 seconds of waterboarding (which is mild torture if any)

A priori argument. When a CIA agent gets tortured, he might give up secrets, but they're rarely secrets that can completely topple the American system (because most of those are above his pay grade).

On the flip side, torture is a HUGE determinant in winning guerrilla wars. It's a lot easier for a captured guerrilla to give up info that can completely undermine the entire insurgency.

You also are ignoring just about everything else I've said.

Originally Posted by predator20

If an average person is fighting to survive, American or any other. They may not want to become a guerilla. But will if they had to in order to survive. A person can adapt easy when it's their own life at stake. It may be a miserable way to live, but better than being dead or worse a prisoner.

Key words here...fighting to survive. You're assuming a totalitarian government would put Americans in those kinds of conditions. I hate to break it to you, but as long as the average person in America (or most other civilized countries in the world) has the ability to get food, water, and electricity, they aren't likely to decide that they have much incentive to overthrow the regime.

If you look at the list of insurgent movements that have emerged in the last century, you'll find that 99% of them are started by the poorest, most disaffected segments of the population, the kinds of people who have absolutely nothing to lose. That is not my opinion; it's statistical fact. And do you really think that any totalitarian regime wanting to take over America doesn't recognize this?

Another thing you're forgetting is that many such regimes also come to power after starting out as insurgencies against the existing government.

[Ace Oliveira]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Even though the Russians are more ruthless than their Western counterparts (as evidenced by case studies from the Hungarian Uprising to the recent Chechen Wars), I don't think they'd bomb entire towns and cities.

All invading armies recognize that they need the cooperation of the local civilian population, unless they're willing to resort to plain genocide. Bombing cities with intent to kill lots of civilians is not SOP nowadays, at least not for major states like Russia (if you're talking Third World hellholes like Sudan, that's another story, but those are the kinds of countries that could never invade the U.S. even if they wanted to, so it's a moot point).



Training, again, has nothing to do with weapons in guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla tactics are pretty simple - hit-and-run attacks, IEDs, things that wear the enemy down. The big challenge is endurance of extremely bad circumstances. Guerrillas win when they outlast the conventional forces by denying them victory, so that the enemy is forced to cut their losses. Poor people who have lived in squalor (or awful terrain) can take this kind of warfare. Americans, on the other hand, can't..

You are completely, 100% right about training. There is still the problem with military vehicles, though. Also, what is SOP?

[Jcordell]

Is it just me or has this thread experienced serious topic drift?

[AdAstra2009]

Originally Posted by MT2008

You also are ignoring just about everything else I've said.

Nope, just that the torture part of what you said was the only thing that I had a reply for.

[Jcordell]

The percentage of the population that will resist an invader is always very small. Most will just try to survive. And that includes the population of Afghanistan. However just because a population is well off and comfortable dosen't mean that it will collapse entirely after an invasion.

For example in WWII there was an active resistance movement in the Netherlands, Beligium and Denmark. It was small and it certainly didn't drive the Germans out (that task fell to the Allied armies), but it was there. Yes they were supported by the allies, but they were active. I would certainly say that those nations were pretty well off.

Most resistance groups don't do very well unless they recieve outside assistance. It just stands to reason because they don't have the resources. If the organization recieves no assistance then eventually it will collapse. It might be bloody and take years, but it will go down.