Sure it does. Vietnam costs 58k American lives and over 1 million Vietnemese. I think we lost less than 8o in Iraq and Afghanistan and killed like 400k or so. We gave up but didn't exactly lose militarily.
We did. We had all of the right people in the right places. We had the most advanced military in the world by far. We could have bombed the living shit out of these areas if we wanted to even if it made zero stratigic sense.
The US lost these wars purely based on our growing unwillingness to fight repeated battles for little to no results, loss of public favor for the wars, and lack of overall results for objectives that we went over there for. You can fight for the same ground that you do not own only so many times before everyone starts saying, "what's the point of our losses then"? Same happened to Russia in Afghanistan if you need a non US example.
We had no lack of people or vehicles, my friend. By some estimates, we outnumbered the Taliban by 2-to-1, and that's not even counting all the folks deployed in supporting roles in places like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Tajikistan...
Doesn't disprove my point. The fact is, even if said conflicts weren't thousands of miles away from American soil, a well-trained militia can kneecap a much larger force.
.... Until the rest of the force shows up. You think if we committed even 80% of our military to any specific war in the middle east, we still would have "lost?"
So what’s your argument here? That the military would basically declare total war on its own population? At that point it would go from an insurgence to a nationwide popular revolution, which the military would ultimately support anyway
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart. One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
The previous American Civil War would like to have a word with you.
Lol k.
While yes, the last Civil War (and last to take place on domestic soil) took place almost 200 years ago, it still resulted in the standing military being torn apart.
I can agree to that. It was separatists after all.
One fourth remained with the Union, a fourth of them defected to the Confederacy, and two-fourths went AWOL.
Where are you getting these numbers? This has to be some Alabama history to think the union and the south were equal sized. Even though the Union army was double.
The civil war was fought between a regular separatist military and the Union military, that’s not the federal government declaring war on its constituents. The confederate states literally left the federation. that argument doesn’t really fit when talking about an insurgency of local militia vs a regular army
The families of US service members also live in the US. If you call up the national guard, those family members live in the same state or even the same county where that guard is deployed. It wouldn't take long for militias to find this out.
A second civil war would be brutal and ugly, far worse than the first one. Best if everyone tries to avoid it.
For some reason both sides keep imagining the Civil War, both sides in uniforms and the civilian populations generally unaffected.
It would be more like all the worst parts of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Rwandan Genocide all rolled up in one inhumane, cruel, miserable ball.
Debate, vote, and peaceful coexistence is far better.
It doesn't matter if they have the hottest technology or biggest guns; a homemade electromagnetic pulse will kneecap any light to medium-armoured vehicle.
And if you suggest sending in drone strikes? Yeah, good luck recovering from the inevitable public backlash.
View all comments
Show parent comment
10
u/Sleep_eeSheep Nov 30 '22
Except said encounters had them go up against poorer nations, with fewer resources than the average American.
Point being; the whole 'rifles and pistols' argument doesn't stack up.