#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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) |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The average CIA agent could only withstand 7-14 seconds of waterboarding (which is mild torture if any) |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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). Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Is it just me or has this thread experienced serious topic drift?
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Nope, just that the torture part of what you said was the only thing that I had a reply for.
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|