|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster.
Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses.
When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you.
|
On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you.
Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue).
We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it.
So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets.
|
On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you.
If we're defining 'victory' by total body counts, sure the more advanced military wins by that count. If we're talking about accomplishing objectives? A more advanced military does not necessarily mean you will outright win. Syria is already a poster child of this very fact. The Syrian government has bombed, used chemical weapons against their own population, and has far more advanced weaponry and the backing of a powerful world power in Russia. And yet they can't even wrestle control of the country from various different groups that are rag tag groups with really minimal advanced weaponry.
Like I said, I don't disagree with the premise we should be limiting weapons/guns in general, but when people say stupid things like 'an armed civilian population will never stand a chance against nuclear warheads/tanks/fighter jets/bombs/etc.' it's ridiculous. Not even North Korea is stupid enough to use such advanced weaponry against their own people, there's better ways to do it. Syria tried it, and look at the shit hole they are in.
|
On July 30 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Like I said, I don't disagree with the premise we should be limiting weapons/guns in general, but when people say stupid things like 'an armed civilian population will never stand a chance against nuclear warheads/tanks/fighter jets/bombs/etc.' it's ridiculous. Not even North Korea is stupid enough to use such advanced weaponry against their own people, there's better ways to do it. Syria tried it, and look at the shit hole they are in.
Sure, some people might try to make that point, most do it in jest. But i don't think that's the argument at all, it's that plenty of people feel like having the weaponry is not necessary and the chances of what is happening on Syria to happen in a western country are so slim that the avoidable death's caused by lax gun control laws outweights it.
|
On July 30 2018 10:30 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Like I said, I don't disagree with the premise we should be limiting weapons/guns in general, but when people say stupid things like 'an armed civilian population will never stand a chance against nuclear warheads/tanks/fighter jets/bombs/etc.' it's ridiculous. Not even North Korea is stupid enough to use such advanced weaponry against their own people, there's better ways to do it. Syria tried it, and look at the shit hole they are in. Sure, some people might try to make that point, most do it in jest. But i don't think that's the argument at all, it's that plenty of people feel like having the weaponry is not necessary and the chances of what is happening on Syria to happen in a western country are so slim that the avoidable death's caused by lax gun control laws outweights it.
Yet people in this very thread seriously tried to use it as justification as to why firearms should be banned. The train of logic was
Disagree with firearms = > Someone claims that firearms could be potentially used to prevent a government take over = > Bunch of people say "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC."
I'd argue that defense against the government is the last thing on the list. I'd say that sporting and home defense are very viable arguments as to why firearms should be allowed. I'd also say that with the election of Trump and the fiasco his administration is, I'd say anything is possible in America at this point.
|
On July 30 2018 10:30 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 10:21 superstartran wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Like I said, I don't disagree with the premise we should be limiting weapons/guns in general, but when people say stupid things like 'an armed civilian population will never stand a chance against nuclear warheads/tanks/fighter jets/bombs/etc.' it's ridiculous. Not even North Korea is stupid enough to use such advanced weaponry against their own people, there's better ways to do it. Syria tried it, and look at the shit hole they are in. Sure, some people might try to make that point, most do it in jest. But i don't think that's the argument at all, it's that plenty of people feel like having the weaponry is not necessary and the chances of what is happening on Syria to happen in a western country are so slim that the avoidable death's caused by lax gun control laws outweights it.
If by "in jest" you mean in an attempt to belittle the person who points out that particular reason. Otherwise I disagree, you can go through this thread and see that point made seriously probably a dozen times. You can even find some creative explanations of how why they are so seriously sure they are and obvious it is that the military would always win.
|
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use.
|
On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use.
I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death.
|
This thread continues to deliver! Always alert against those sneaky German socialists.
|
On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death.
I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long
|
On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long
Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces.
You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright.
|
United States24690 Posts
On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that. Here are examples of posts from this thread that either directly state it or allude to it:
+ Show Spoiler +
The thing is, it's been argued many times that the types of guns people buy for self defense are useless for fighting tyranny.
It's also been refuted many times.
|
On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets.
Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with.
Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically.
And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force.
On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright.
Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population.
The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all.
|
On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all.
I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics.
You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition.
|
United States42778 Posts
On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition.
?
The US has a trillion dollars to spend, while the Taliban no longer run their own country.
Afghanistan is a colossal waste of lives and treasure, but the US has plenty of both to waste. The Taliban still lost.
|
On July 30 2018 15:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. ? The US has a trillion dollars to spend, while the Taliban no longer run their own country. Afghanistan is a colossal waste of lives and treasure, but the US has plenty of both to waste. The Taliban still lost.
I disagree, but if we're burning money and people it probably shouldn't be the ones we send or on more weapons
|
On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition.
You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".
Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works.
|
On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works.
I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning.
You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer.
It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it.
|
On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it.
I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory.
Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military.
|
On July 30 2018 16:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2018 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 16:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 14:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 14:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 10:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 06:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 30 2018 02:30 superstartran wrote:On July 28 2018 08:22 Excludos wrote:On July 28 2018 08:07 KR_4EVR wrote:
It's almost universal that people want to limit weapons access according to lethality.
I recently watched a Ted show by an ex-Nato commander who basically took out a HUGE gun and set it to rest on a pedestal. He then proceeded to explain very clearly why you 1) either need a standing army with those weapons or 2) need every man in the country armed with the latest, greatest weapon.
He then recounted how when the German Socialists invaded Denmark, the guns of his grandfather and the townspeople, being NOT the latest and greatest, did virtually zero.
Previous to watching that video, I used to think that there should be some limit on weapons capacity. Now I don't. I think that every grown man should own a weapon at least capable of neutralizing a tank or helicopter. I'd far rather risk being killed by a social misfit with a gun than being controlled by sociopaths without them.
At the end of the day, even a bar of soap can be used to kill a person, but will not help you in violent times. Similarly, a C-4 may kill nobody ever but would prove very effective if needed in violent times.
Many people have written about the cycles of civilization. After every golden age there inevitably comes a time of turmoil. EVERY SINGLE TIME people at the peak of civilization make the mistake of thinking that they will be secure and convince themselves that things are getting better.
If anything, seeing more gun death statistics should always convince people to buy more weapons, and seeing fewer should convince people to buy less. When the future arrives you won't have time to prepare.
And, as I said, I wouldn't mind being killed by a socail outcaste, but I'd fight blood and iron against being controlled by gunless sociopaths. This post could be written exactly the same, word for word, and be meant a satire. You basically took the point of the Ted talk and put it on the head. I can't imagine a place where I want to live less than where everyone and their grandma has access to rocket launchers. A "social outcast" isn't going to kill only 10-20 people anymore, they could literally just blow up an entire school with several hundred students with one shot. And all this is ignoring the fact that the "latest greatest weapons" needs education. Do you think your uncle is going to be able to stop a tank with a Titan launcher with zero training? Who's going to provide the funding for all these weapons and the training to use them? You want to increase your defence budget hundredfolds so every single person in the nation can own and learn to use cutting edge technology? This is just bizarre to think anyone could possibly imagine this being a remotely good idea, and to just accept the fact that murders will increase tenfold if not even more, just to support some weird concept that an armed population is somehow a good idea. You have an army for a reason. You don't need nor really want civilians to get involved. They're much much more likely to just get in the way. This isn't 1950. Wars aren't fought they way the used to. You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not. While I agree that not everyone should have access to unlimited weaponry, I do have to disagree with the notion that private citizens are not able to withstand the military might of an advanced group. There are too many relatively recent incidents (i.e. insurgents in the Middle East) to simply dismiss the idea of an armed population being able to fend off a more advanced army. And before you bring up things like bombers, tanks, and other things typical civilians don't have access to you, let's remember that in other dictorial countries you don't see military leaders typically using those things against their population. Because when you do, you typically have a rebellion, bad world relations, and an overall terrible situation on your hand. Syria is of course the poster child for this. Using attack helicopters, tanks, and chemical weapons on your own population is a recipe for disaster. Except in none of those recent incidents (or the entire history of guerrilla warfare, really) does an armed population actually "withstand" or "fend off" an advanced military army. They lose the land and the resources almost immediately, but prolong the conflict by making continued military action costly until they cut their losses. When it's your own nation's army you're fighting, they're not going to leave. And when it's a full scale invasion to claim your land, you're probably costing them a lot less than any resources their taking from you. Pretty sure the Taliban won in Afghanistan. You can't just be in a permanent war with your own population nor can you slaughter your allies and/or non-combatants indefinitely else your whole country becomes only the people you're paying to kill the rest. Which sets up a natural division in which two separate entities form. One side full of mercenaries that were willing to slaughter their own families, the other anyone that couldn't be paid or threatened enough to do it (or continue). We paid a lot of money (to the tune of a trillion dollars into the country) and used some of the most expensive and high tech weapons in the world against a bunch of guys in caves with 80's era soviet weapons and RC cars with our unexploded ordinance taped to it. So sure a modern military could slaughter some civilian militia armed with AR's and Glocks, probably dozens of times over, but it's not as simple as meeting on a battlefield and killing each other until the other side runs out of bodies and bullets. Er, yes, that's my entire point? Not sure what you're arguing with. Taliban were the guerrilla fighters making occupation long and costly. And the invading forces cut their losses and pulled out, leaving the status quo somewhat altered, but roughly the same balance of power as before. The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically. And in the context of this discussion chain, the Taliban certainly aren't an armed population. They're an armed military force fighting against a more advanced military force. On July 30 2018 12:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 12:30 Excludos wrote:On July 30 2018 12:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 30 2018 11:44 Excludos wrote:
Guys, can we take the straw man down a couple of pegs? Absolutely no one has stated anything close to "YOUR AR-15 DOES NOTHING AGAINST ABRAMS TANKS/LASER GUIDED BOMBS/ETC". The closest is me saying " You can't just grab your 50. Cal and think you're going to remotely be of any use; you're not." last page. That doesn't mean armed civilians can't put up any kind of fight. As it's been pointed out, middle east is a very good counter argument for that.
However, let's sit down and realise what the difference between a potential Russia attack on the US (Or, as some people still think is reasonable: US government against US itself): objectives. The objective for the average layman (I'm including ISIS in this as they are not really an army, despite flying under a single banner) in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria is to kill as many people as possible, no matter the cost. This is a fine objective if you want to absolutely thrust your country into a downward spiral of economic and infrastructure collapse. It is not fine in a country of US where you probably want to come out on the other end of the war still as a first world country. When I'm pointing out that "Don't think you're going to remotely be of any use" I mean in the sense that "It's not worth sacrificing 10-20 civilians pr enemy soldier in a modern day war between superpowers". It's much much better to either A: Hope your army is capable of winning, or B: Accept the loss and start worshipping your new Russian overlords. Because alternative C is total annihilation.
You can argue all you want whether who "won" the war in Syria, but looking at the country today there is no doubt who the losers are.
This is why any argument about "everyone should have weapons in case of invasion" or worse "everyone should have access to top military tech in case of an invasion" falls apart if you try to look further up the road a little bit, and that's before we start talking about the downsides of causalities in peace time.
edit: This probably doesn't need to be stated, but there's always one who's pedantic about it: By first and third world country I mean the adopted modern day use of the words, not the initial NATO definition no longer in use. I'm speaking about the thread in general (it's pretty long) so I can't speak to what you've said specifically, but your argument doesn't seem to account for not submitting to new overlords. If the bargain is submit or face ruin it's liberty or death. I think in certain situations it's worth following the "fight another day" principle. You dying doesn't accomplish anything. In all likelihood a occupation of any country isn't going to last for long Some people fight every day. That's how resisting a superior fighting force works. "Liberty or death" doesn't mean you die on the first hill you come to. Making occupation prohibitively expensive through guerrilla warfare is fundamental to the success of fighting with lesser forces. You're describing/advocating being a collaborator. That's a decision people would have to make and justify to themselves, but the collaborators only hope are the people who wholeheartedly reject the idea outright. Neither collaborators or resistance fighters (or even combined numbers) tend to be remotely close to the majority of an occupied population. The French occupation in WW2 is probably the most famous cases of an underground, armed resistance force. And that was still only 10% of the population using the most generous numbers circulated amongst the resistance. Active collaborators were a far smaller number. That leaves about 13 million people who were just living under occupation...and with the numbers of occupying German forces, a good chance most of them had little to no contact with German military at all. I'm a bit confused. You seem to think the US spending ~$1,000,000,000,000 and ending up basically where they started (except a lot worse in so many ways) was somehow not a magnificently impressive resistance and victory for the Taliban (admittedly if you follow US foreign policy or the region it wasn't very surprising), regardless of their shitty politics. You seem to be arguing both sides. That resistance is effective but an effective resistance is a losing proposition. You're confused because you keep skipping over my repeated point about "The difference in the case of civil war or imperialistic invasion is that the point of cutting losses changes drastically".Don't know why you keep bringing up the US and the Taliban when I keep saying they're the case where attrition through guerrilla warfare works. I'm not skipping it, you didn't make it originally really. You argued that guerrilla warfare worked, but that it wasn't a win. Essentially you called winning losing and losing winning. You did mention that it would be different in the US, which it would. But it would work off the same principals and win conditions. Losing is submission, winning is resistance until they fall be it a day, a decade, a generation, or longer. It's in that way we've lost more than blood and treasure in Afghanistan it took a lot of our civil liberties with it. I mean, you brought up the zillion dollars that US spent as the reason the Taliban won. What if they took Iraq's oil because the invasion was an imperialist conquest for resources? Now it's a financial gain to be there, and Iraq would still be an oppressed territory. Guerrilla warfare is, simplistically, about trading lives for money. And it doesn't work so hot when that advanced military invasion is financially justifiable. Or, in the case of a military dictatorship, when that dictatorship is maintaining the funding of that military.
Which is why I went on about how imposing a military dictatorship in the US isn't as simple as turning Texas into a crater. I didn't think you were seriously trying to continue to push this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
