War in Ukraine

#68,177
#68,177
LouderVol said:
which 100 million people you going to tomahawk? I don't think making 100 million people enemies of the state for exercising a right and thus worthy of liquidation by the military will sit too well with the remaining 230 million. Even if you assumed you got the 100 million at home in groups of 4, thats 25 million homes the US government would have to have cruise missiles, tanks, and trained squads to hit all at once to remove the threat. otherwise they are fighting a running war against guerillas who blend into the population and who wouldn't have a hard time using the military's own gear and strategy against itself. and that assumes the entire military structure is going to remain intact during a civil war incidence and that those remaining would be totally willing to strike innocent civilians.

how many of our vets now know how to handle IEDs? you don't need to blow a tank into a million pieces to take it out of a fight. planes have to land at some point, even drones to rearm/refuel, and they would have ground based operators.

it would not be the one-sided fight you think it would be.
Click to expand...
It would be one sided. Small arms and IEDs cannot win, only annoy. The military would land in DC and anywhere else they want and effectively dismantle the US infrastructure and govt as they wished.

Would they kill everyone? No. Would they face continued harassment? Yes.

Most importantly, would they be in control? Absolutely.
 
#68,179
#68,179
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It would be one sided. Small arms and IEDs cannot win, only annoy. The military would land in DC and anywhere else they want and effectively dismantle the US infrastructure and govt as they wished.

Would they kill everyone? No. Would they face continued harassment? Yes.

Most importantly, would they be in control? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Why do you have such little regard for our uniformed service members? Talk about being disrespectful, that's you bud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, Matt2496 and 82_VOL_83
#68,182
#68,182
hog88 said:
Why do you have such little regard for our uniformed service members? Talk about being disrespectful, that's you bud.
Click to expand...
I have never said this is a likely scenario. I've stated from the start: using the 2nd Amendment to insist that civilians can protect themselves from the military went out the window when the musket and marching wars ended.

It's like boxing. The reason there are weight divisions is that a 125lb man fighting a 225lb man, assuming they both are trained isn't a fair fight.

I'm not saying that fight is likely but I'm saying you can't say a lesser trained 125lb man can beat a better trained 225lb man and be serious. You start citing "there's more of us." There's plenty of heavyweights too. "They won't actually hit us." Probably not, but if they do...... it's over.
 
#68,184
#68,184
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
I have never said this is a likely scenario. I've stated from the start: using the 2nd Amendment to insist that civilians can protect themselves from the military went out the window when the musket and marching wars ended.

It's like boxing. The reason there are weight divisions is that a 125lb man fighting a 225lb man, assuming they both are trained isn't a fair fight.

I'm not saying that fight is likely but I'm saying you can't say a lesser trained 125lb man can beat a better trained 225lb man and be serious. You start citing "there's more of us." There's plenty of heavyweights too. "They won't actually hit us." Probably not, but if they do...... it's over.
Click to expand...
How big a boy are you?
 
#68,185
#68,185
82_VOL_83 said:
How big a boy are you?
Click to expand...
That's exactly how these guys sound to me. It's foolish to say that kind of thing to a trained fighter.

The military has a mission of disabling resistance. It's what they do. They're professionals.

Yet here we have people saying to the military, "How big a boy are you?" like tough guys. It's a joke.
 
#68,186
#68,186
hog88 said:
Why do you have such little regard for our uniformed service members? Talk about being disrespectful, that's you bud.
Click to expand...

Without attempting to derail the argument, how ya'll feel about Ears Tuberville single handedly holding up more than 250 military promotions to protest the Pentagons abortion policy of reimbursing military members for up to 21 days of leave for an abortion or fertility treatment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#68,187
#68,187
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
It would be one sided. Small arms and IEDs cannot win, only annoy. The military would land in DC and anywhere else they want and effectively dismantle the US infrastructure and govt as they wished.

Would they kill everyone? No. Would they face continued harassment? Yes.

Most importantly, would they be in control? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
some crack heads looking to rob a gas station were able to take down power to a whole county with a gunshot. You can cut off direct military communication to various forts in the south east by cutting an unmarked cable in Atlanta.

if it was a stand up fight, sure it would be one sided. But it wouldn't be. there wouldn't be a green zone to fall back to. the military wouldn't be able to sit back and use agent orange to create safe areas for them to operate out of. They going to destroy a whole neighborhood that didn't pick a fight with them to land some helicopters like we would in Vietnam? They going go door to door like we did in Iraq ready to shoot anyone that looks at them funny?

The examples of our military fighting insurgents is laughable as we have 3x the ARMED population that either Vietnam or Iraq had total. and seeing as how neither country was privately armed before and still mounted the resistance they did, our population is 10x them, and then you add on the 100 million already armed and the problem they would face hear would be hugely different.

what manufacturing, repair, logistics, runs out of DC? our out of any of the 100+ military bases in the US?

and again, your whole assumption relies on getting an intact military ready for a fight against our civilians. there are 1.4 million total active troops, 100 million armed civilians, so it wouldn't be a 1vs5. each enlisted individual would need to kill 100, and not all enlisted are front line fighters, so each fighter would need to kill many times that number. and the other thing you refuse to address is that a high percentage of those 1.4 million soldiers are going to identify with that 100 million, as that will be there brothers, sisters, parents, and children. they aren't busting in on some far away foreigner they know nothing about, they are busting in on their neighbor Tom, wife Susie, and their own son's friend Billy. that's a steep ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#68,188
#68,188
Septic said:
Without attempting to derail the argument, how ya'll feel about Ears Tuberville single handedly holding up more than 250 military promotions to protest the Pentagons abortion policy of reimbursing military members for up to 21 days of leave for an abortion or fertility treatment?
Click to expand...

I haven't paid any attention to the subject. But on just what you posted here I'm going to say, good. If I'm not mistaken only promotions to flag grade and promotions within flag grade need Senate approval, exactly how many O-7 and above do we need? Also why would the military reimburse someone for an abortion or fertility treatments, abortions should be available on base or covered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Matt2496 and 82_VOL_83
#68,189
#68,189
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
That's exactly how these guys sound to me. It's foolish to say that kind of thing to a trained fighter.

The military has a mission of disabling resistance. It's what they do. They're professionals.

Yet here we have people saying to the military, "How big a boy are you?" like tough guys. It's a joke.
Click to expand...
No, I was really laughing at you. 125 lb. grown man? I don't know anyone that I would consider grown that isn't a pacifist that weighs 125. Your whole thought process on this is flawed. If the military in this country (made up of volunteers and by and large grossly underpaid) is going to turn on it's citizenry, there is a much bigger issue at play. Do you honestly think that a majority of them would follow the upper ranks right now? If you do, you are full of ****. A volunteer force will fight with the citizens before it fights for a tyranny.

The bolded take...you are a ****ing troll.
 
#68,190
#68,190
hog88 said:
I haven't paid any attention to the subject. But on just what you posted here I'm going to say, good. If I'm not mistaken only promotions to flag grade and promotions within flag grade need Senate approval, exactly how many O-7 and above do we need? Also why would the military reimburse someone for an abortion or fertility treatments, abortions should be available on base or covered.
Click to expand...

The issue is that it holds up training for the rotations of the retiring. These aren't additions, they're replacements.
 
#68,191
#68,191
LouderVol said:
some crack heads looking to rob a gas station were able to take down power to a whole county with a gunshot. You can cut off direct military communication to various forts in the south east by cutting an unmarked cable in Atlanta.

if it was a stand up fight, sure it would be one sided. But it wouldn't be. there wouldn't be a green zone to fall back to. the military wouldn't be able to sit back and use agent orange to create safe areas for them to operate out of. They going to destroy a whole neighborhood that didn't pick a fight with them to land some helicopters like we would in Vietnam? They going go door to door like we did in Iraq ready to shoot anyone that looks at them funny?

The examples of our military fighting insurgents is laughable as we have 3x the ARMED population that either Vietnam or Iraq had total. and seeing as how neither country was privately armed before and still mounted the resistance they did, our population is 10x them, and then you add on the 100 million already armed and the problem they would face hear would be hugely different.

what manufacturing, repair, logistics, runs out of DC? our out of any of the 100+ military bases in the US?

and again, your whole assumption relies on getting an intact military ready for a fight against our civilians. there are 1.4 million total active troops, 100 million armed civilians, so it wouldn't be a 1vs5. each enlisted individual would need to kill 100, and not all enlisted are front line fighters, so each fighter would need to kill many times that number. and the other thing you refuse to address is that a high percentage of those 1.4 million soldiers are going to identify with that 100 million, as that will be there brothers, sisters, parents, and children. they aren't busting in on some far away foreigner they know nothing about, they are busting in on their neighbor Tom, wife Susie, and their own son's friend Billy. that's a steep ask.
Click to expand...
There's a very very big difference between owning a gun and being able to use it tactically, as you probably know. Many civilians would be too skittish after a little "shock and awe" to fight. As I've said, if portions of the military join both sides, it becomes a full on civil war which while horrific, isn't a civilians vs military fight.

It's about control and the military could establish it rather easily because they're trained to do that. They don't need to kill everyone. They can bring their own power supply, communication, food, water, etc while making civilians extremely uncomfortable.

Unlike most civilians, soldiers expect and train for discomfort regularly. Yeah, there are veterans who still train but they lack the military equipment to make a stand for long.

I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. I will not give up my weapons nor freedom without a fight if it came to that, but I'm realistic. The firepower I possess will be deleted in weeks. The military will finish the mission of controlling the populace, not without continued resistance, but they will control the country if they wish.
 
#68,192
#68,192
82_VOL_83 said:
No, I was really laughing at you. 125 lb. grown man? I don't know anyone that I would consider grown that isn't a pacifist that weighs 125. Your whole thought process on this is flawed. If the military in this country (made up of volunteers and by and large grossly underpaid) is going to turn on it's citizenry, there is a much bigger issue at play. Do you honestly think that a majority of them would follow the upper ranks right now? If you do, you are full of ****. A volunteer force will fight with the citizens before it fights for a tyranny.

The bolded take...you are a ****ing troll.
Click to expand...
I never said this was likely and YES, YES, YES! that's been my entire point. If we're having to defend against the military, we don't have a chance because something has gone horribly wrong.

But the actual logistics and tactics of fighting the military with small arms is not sustainable. Civilians won't be wiped out but the resistance can't be sustained.
 
#68,193
#68,193
Septic said:
The issue is that it holds up training for the rotations of the retiring. These aren't additions, they're replacements.
Click to expand...

So? Cut the number of flag officers, there are what 600-700 of them now? Do we need that many O-7s and above? I doubt we do but even if so, WGAF that an O has to work up a grade for a while?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#68,194
#68,194
Live: Wagner will not fight in Ukraine war, says Russian official | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera

7qzycs.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paper_Towel, Rocky_Top_Vol13, AM64 and 1 other person
#68,195
#68,195
hog88 said:
So? Cut the number of flag officers, there are what 600-700 of them now? Do we need that many O-7s and above? I doubt we do but even if so, WGAF that an O has to work up a grade for a while?
Click to expand...

Well as long as you doubt it, that should be good enough. Who needs military leadership anyway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volkyries
#68,197
#68,197
Septic said:
Without attempting to derail the argument, how ya'll feel about Ears Tuberville single handedly holding up more than 250 military promotions to protest the Pentagons abortion policy of reimbursing military members for up to 21 days of leave for an abortion or fertility treatment?
Click to expand...
I think this is politics getting in the way of how the military establishes a "buddy system" when officers start to bubble into the political arm of the military.

The Pentagon gets pissed because they can't pick their favorites to streamline into a Pentagon job unless they can promote them as they wish.

Tuberville is disrupting mostly the Democrats with this because they can either bring them to floor one by one, making Senate business difficult, or not promote. In that, it's fun to watch. In the military circles, it's a reminder that establishing good rapport with Senators is crucial..... even dumb ones like Tuberville.
 
#68,198
#68,198
Septic said:
Live: Wagner will not fight in Ukraine war, says Russian official | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera

7qzycs.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm skeptical Wagner is just going to sit in Belarus indefinitely. Very skeptical. Putin let Prig survive for some purpose other than to rest and reset in Belarus.

If Wagner remains together in Belarus, it's at the discretion of Russia. It makes no sense to have proven military assets just sitting out a war Russia is not winning.

My nightmare scenario is that "Wagner got ahold of the tactical nukes in Belarus and fired one. It wasn't us in Russia. We're appalled."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top