this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
779 points (97.7% liked)
Funny
6828 readers
559 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Republicans: "We'd win a 2nd civil war, we have all the guns!"
Bitch, do you think your civilian small-arms could stand against the full military might of the federal government!? Not even saying it's a good thing...
The Taliban would like a word.
On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what's underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can't see them with your naked eye.
It would have nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The guys half way across the world from the US army, where the only thing at stake was a country they’d bombed to shit previously?
Which is exactly why the US isn't going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn't very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn't good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
That’s like saying the US wouldn’t fight the confederacy because it would damage their land…
Reconstruction was mostly social, not infrastructure. It was reconstructing social order in place of what was removed (plantation farming a slave labor), not buildings/roads/railways really.
Well that became the narrative when it became clear that we weren't going to rebuild all the buildings we burned down.
And things have changed quite a bit since the civil war. We have a very interconnected country and world. Airplanes exist now. Nuclear submarines and cruise missiles. The destructive power of our weapons has increased ten fold. And we have instant access to 24/7 new media. I don't think we have the appetite for such a thing in this day and age. Not to mention how any number of hostile nations would be foaming at the mouth looking forward to us having our guard down.
Anything is possible I guess, even if I personally wouldn't bet money on it. Then again I'm just a guy and no one in power is gonna ask my opinion. They very well may surprise me and bomb Jethrow's compound or downtown Houston.
My original flippant response was triggered from the ease with which people think the US military is some unstoppable force and the Republicans that do this nonsense would easily be put down. I think it is a lot more complicated than that and no course of action would be easy and painless. That's wishful thinking on behalf of us lefties.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the "we have all the guns here in Texas" argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can't choose both.
No?
Why would you assume it works that way.
I'm saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you're arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don't rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you're fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don't solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
We don't carpet bomb anymore. We hit critical targets. They would destroy the power grid, oil depots, ammo supplies, etc. They wouldn't do "wholesale destruction". That hasn't been a thing for a while now in warframe, except for in Gaza and Ukraine.
You're probably right, and I used overly broad language. I'm sure there would be targeted strikes. But any strike against infrastructure would be what I would consider a Big Deal™. Everything is so interconnected now that taking out the power grid, for example, would wreak havoc on all the innocent civilians in the area. Just look at how shit hit the fan when Texas lost power in the winter.
I just think it would be a much more complicated situation than either argument of "we have all the guns, libruls" or "we have Predator drones, conservatard". I'm used to conservatives making stupid arguments. It bothers me more when I see my side do it.
But hey, maybe I'm the idiot and it would all work out with targeted strikes. That's why I'm just some guy on the internet and not a general in the Army or whatever.
You're not an idiot, but you're sure limiting the scope of your concerns. Many would die on both sides. But "Many" has a lot of room for nuance inside it.
Let's take out the big arms and leave it at small arms and infantry assistance technology. The actual, newer than the mothballs police departments get gifted.
Do you actually figure that the remainder of the military which doesn't turn traitor is gonna be outnumbered by the seceding traitors in this civil war scenario?
Did you also account for the metric fuckton of able bodied people who would enlist during an open war to stomp out Fascism at home in the open like that? The largest regressive ideology spewing for the entire history of the Union state?
The far right isn't even remotely sized large enough to outsize the non-crazies in the military and those who would run to go join for the resources to defend their country.
It would absolutely lead to much blood shed on both sides. But the losses on New Texas? would at minimum be a whole ass order of magnitude higher. At minimum.
I really would rather not have to pick up arms, and I hope most would too.
But rest assured, the US military would shock and awe the fuck out of Texas to dissuade any in the other 49 from fucking around and finding out, if legit Civil War broke out at Texas' provocation.
Not at all.
I'm sure there would a lot more than fascists willing to actually fight.
That was my actual point. Not that New Texas has any chance of actually winning.
The Taliban had the advantage of logistics. Which we all know is important in war according to Sun Tzu.
It will be a whole lot different when they can fight on their own home turf, which they have been fortifying since whenever they arrived.