Reply #23: It's never that simple

[krispos42]

But it does depend almost entirely on the percent of the population that is dissatisfied and willing to act in a guerrilla fashion. The stuff that the Iraqis did, the stuff that the Afghans do right now, THAT is the kind of war that a rebellion in the US would have to move to, at least in the opening stages.

Obviously, the armed citizens of America, in revolt, wouldn't be able to march and fight like a conventional army; they'd get slaughtered in a stand-up fight. Putting on camo and forming a battle line isn't going to work against a military with armored fighting vehicles, artillery, and close air support. It would work against a police force; they don't have heavy weapons beyond a quantity of breeching explosives and a handful of armored cars intended for hostage-rescue and riot control. But not an army.


But we saw how a relative handful of Iraqis managed to cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep a country the size of Texas marginally subdued... and the destruction and economic collapse of Iraq wasn't even reflected in the US.

If a similar operation was underway by the Federal government to keep order in Texas, we would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year for a decade to keep Texas in the Union against insurgent attacks by Texicans, while at the same time losing a trillion dollars a year of economic activity as Texas' economy collapsed into rampant unemployment and non-productivity.

And American soldiers suffered enough PTSD killing people that are quite different from us; can you imagine the unpopularity of the troops if they had to perform the same duties in Texas, against people like them? Seeing American, Texican children caught in the crossfire, seeing grieving mothers bury their children with Christian prayers in English?

And can you imagine roving bands of loyalist Texican agents and non-Texas sympathizers moving through the country, performing acts of sabotage that further sap the economy and slow the ability of the Federal government to produce and ship war materials?


There is a solid history of insurgent/guerrilla campaigns becoming better armed and more professional as civil wars drag on. Remember, a lot of the high-tech weapons are useless or nearly so against insurgents, so they tend to fall by the wayside as effort it put into boots-on-the-ground infantry. As as the rebellious side gathers arms and armaments from raids and hijackings they also get more conventional.

:shrug:

Whichever way you slice it, it become a giant fucking mess. I don't have guns because I envision joining in a rebellion, or fighting against one as part of a local militia. I have guns because they're fun to shoot, and I want to be able to defend myself if I'm attacked or if the US collapses.

I don't anticipate having to defend against a foreign invading enemy, but hey, if I'm pressed into the line alongside regular GIs, I imagine I'll be able to get a few shots down-range with them.