The Firearms Thread.

[Retlaw83]

Considering that the opposition of the world's might in Afghanistan and Iraq are a bunch of people with small arms, a few rpgs, and improvised explosives, I'd say that it matters and that said items will care.

Mis-steps in Iraq and Afghanistan are political. Ragtag assholes with improvised weapons are a hassle, but not a significant enough military threat to actually defeat the US military.

[Wolfman Walt]

Because politics wouldn't be front and center if shit ever kicked off here.

I also severly doubt improvised explosives suddenly blowing up armored vehicles is a "political mis-step." I'd also say it's something that the military is concerned about. To say that armed citizens would not be something that the military would worry about in the event of an armed uprising is asinine.

[Kashluk]

Psychological warfare is also a military threat. Being on your toes, always combat ready and under heavy stress, but still amongst civilians, trying to act polite, takes its toll on men. Sure, the amount of casualties might not seem much of a deal, but look at the amount of resources that are tied to the conflict - and at what cost? A couple of AKs and improvised explosives.

And even though Obama's pulling back US troops from Iraq, there will still be more than 100.000 Blackwater and other security company mercenaries left in the country. And with no guarantees that the place will hold together.

[Blargh]

Much of a deal ? I'm sure there are numerous Afghani/Iraqi civilians who would agree . . . Some, I expect, even prehumously. Or, could it be that they aren't relevant ?

Of course !

[fallout ranger]

One the other hand, you don't need a submachine gun to go deer hunting.

And? You sound like a canadian.

[Stalagmite]

Making up for their miniscule cocks by talking about absurdly overpowered weaponry.

Planning, hoping, awaiting the storm so we can rule over those who stuck their heads in the sand and said “It’ll never happen!�

I was under the impression that most Americans had their heads stuck up their asses, not in sand, but best of luck anyway.

[Retlaw83]

To say that armed citizens would not be something that the military would worry about in the event of an armed uprising is asinine.

Try reading what I said again, instead of what you wanted me to say to fit your argument, and we might come to some kind of consensus.

A group of armed civilians using guerilla tactics, while a threat, would not defeat the modern US military. If the government does go bad for whatever reason, you could be Iraqi insurgent about it and make a statement by attacking professional soldiers. This will end in you getting killed.

[rad resistance]

You can't defeat the mindset of a population or change thousands of years of a feudal system that has held Afghanistan together or in the dark ages. These men in Afghanistan have been fighting well before most of these soldiers were born. Afghan rebels will continue to fight until they defeat or force the withdrawal of yet another invasion force into the mighty Afghan.

[fallout ranger]

You can't defeat the mindset of a population or change thousands of years of a feudal system that has held Afghanistan together or in the dark ages. These men in Afghanistan have been fighting well before most of these soldiers were born. Afghan rebels will continue to fight until they defeat or force the withdrawal of yet another invasion force into the mighty Afghan.

British=fail

Russians=fail

USA=TBD


Anyways...Anyone into black powder? Antique firearms?

[Wolfman Walt]

Try reading what I said again, instead of what you wanted me to say to fit your argument, and we might come to some kind of consensus.

Additionally, given our military might, regardless of what citizens are armed with, tanks, artillery and armored troop carriers really won't care.

How about saying it better next time? I didn't change your argument in the slightest, you specifically said they wouldn't care. The problem is more on your end. Try writing what you wish to state better.

As for guerilla warfare - I don't think the purpose would be to DEFEAT the U.S. military in it's entirety. In such a situation, I'd imagine that it wouldn't just be straight up Civilians vs. Army. It's dumb to think that the whole army would just not object to wholesale slaughter of it's country's civilians. In addition, it's not as though other countries would just stand aside and let a corrupt government murder it's own citizens here. If anything, Iraq has proven that poorly trained, poorly armed civilians can hold their own against the world's most powerful military for long enough to recieve support from outside sources.

[Retlaw83]

I see the ability to decipher hyperbole is not strong with this one.

[Wolfman Walt]

Good to know that you still rely solely on ad hominems when backed into a corner. Apperently war isn't the only thing that never changes.

[Retlaw83]

I'm not backed into a corner or relying on ad hominems. I have made the statement that the population of the US, armed as their are, are no match for a professional, modern western military, specifically the US military. If for some reason we did need to fight the government, it wouldn't matter if you have a submachine gun neutered to be semi-auto or a bolt action rifle in your closet; net result would be a loss.

But please do reply to this post by taking every word literally, individually, and out of context until it's molded into the post you want to respond to.

[Wolfman Walt]

I'm not backed into a corner or relying on ad hominems.

Strange, because that's what you seem to always do when you lack any real argument. This is one of those cases, although I do appreciate the attempt to just repeat your previous argument with no real evidence to even try and counter my arguments.

net result would be a loss

And history proves otherwise. A mostly untrained, civilian fed force have been the biggest thorns in the US Military's side in 3 of the last 4 wars fought by the US. We lost Vietnam. We're not doing too well in Afghanistan. We're only now doing decent in Iraq, but with all our main forces being withdraw, that's likely to change.

But please do reply to this post by taking every word literally, individually, and out of context until it's molded into the post you want to respond to.

10-4. You'll be the first to know when I ever do that. Thus far I've simply taken things you've said directly and well with in context. If you don't like that, then my suggestion remains, "Don't post them."

[fallout ranger]

If for some reason we did need to fight the government, it wouldn't matter if you have a submachine gun neutered to be semi-auto or a bolt action rifle in your closet; net result would be a loss.

Machines break down, run out of fuel, get stuck in sand, the most effective weapon on the battlefield is soldiers with small arms, that's why infantry has and always will exist.

...Ragtag assholes with improvised weapons...

You know i bet that's what Cornwallis said about the continental army.

[SenisterDenister]

For the record we didn't lose Vietnam militarilty, the public was just tired of fighting a war they didn't want to be in, but as far as I know after the Tet Offensive we ended up coming out ahead.

[Retlaw83]

So much inanity, so little time.

@ Walt: The Vietnamese forces had the Viet Cong - trained civilian militia - and the North Vietnamese Army, a professional fighting force. If you actually look at history, the U.S. didn't lose a single engagement in Vietnam; the loss was the result of political policy limiting use of force. Also, the military makes the following distinction: We did not lose Vietnam because we were there in an advisory capacity. The South Vietnamese lost it for themselves, largely because the populace was apathetic to what political system they lived under so long as they could keep living how they were.

The differences between Iraq and Afghanistan are myriad. Let's start with Iraq.

Iraq, despite the different ethnic groups in it, has a national identity and the majority of the people living in it want to be a country despite the differences. Remember the phrase, "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here?" Bush wasn't talking about the Iraqis; he was talking about Al-Qaeda and other assorted radical Islamic crazies. Going into Iraq created a power vacuum these groups wanted to fill, so they rolled into Iraq because they wanted to expel the Americans and start running things their way.

However, what we didn't bank on, was invading the Iraqis, disrupting their power, water and blowing chunks out of their neighborhoods while bringing all these unsafe militant wackos in would royally piss them off. Thus gave rise to the insurgency, which was a largely uncoordinated movement of average Iraqis who were upset over being invaded. U.S. policy changed to rebuild Iraq better than it was before, the Iraqis saw quick, positive results, and the insurgency ended as a legitimate threat. Now you have Al-Qaeda and Sunni militants running around, which have some basic training, and the Iraqi people want them stamped out.

Tying into all of this is, despite the evils Hussein did, he was a firm believer in public education and Iraq has a 74% literacy rate. This has been invaluable in forming government and training the Iraqi army.

Now for Afghanistan. Large sections of Afghanistan have never come under the rule of a national government; as a matter of the fact, many of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border tribes aren't even aware there is a border. The Afghans who have never been beholden to a national government don't want to be, and many of these tribes are fundamentalist Muslims who think Al-Qaeda and similar groups have worthy goals.

Afghanistan has never been unified, and doesn't want to be. Tie this in with a 28% literacy rate, making it virtually impossible to train Afghan security forces, and a pot and opium culture that's firmly taken hold with the nation's youth since the Taliban was forced out of power, and you have a really fucked up situation.

As you can see, the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq do not boil down to some civilians with guns being highly effective military forces.

Also, in both wars, it's a fair estimate that over 100 Islamic militants die for every 1 U.S. soldier killed; most of this is courtesy of air power, as the modern tactic is to use infantry to pin enemy forces in place while calling in an airstrike on their location. Perhaps over the course of years and years you can wear down a real military by striking from the shadows; but the modern military force can strike back, and losing 100 guys for every one you kill is a really fucking stupid way to do it.

@ Fallout Ranger: You so totally missed the mark with the Continental Army and Cornwallis remark that you're not worth the time to set straight. The Continental Army was armed largely with the same types of weaponry available to the British army; that's why it said in the Constitution we have the right to bear arms to fight government tyranny, because the forefathers did not foresee a time when civilians had basic guns while the opposing military had supersonic fighter jets that can drop a guided bomb down a house chimney from one hundred miles away.

[Stalagmite]

For the record, despite these postings being interesting to read, none of this shit about invasions, guns, insurgents, continental armies and founding fathers impresses me in the least. Leave it to those fucking Americans to worship 250 year old pieces of political paper whilst going around putting their noses into other peoples garbage. If that's what being a superpower is all about that I'll be thank fucked living a life where people get their teeth knocked out in a ring whilst drowning my sorrows on a regular basis. At least I'm not in the bit worried of someday crazy uptight bastards with guns will come storming down my door barking like fucking gorillas about the government fucking them in their arses for whatever the fuck delusional reasons. I could go on and on but I really couldn't be fucked.

G'day.

[Wolfman Walt]

I've got to go to work here in afew, so I'll address this more fully tonight, but I'm calling bullshit on this -

the U.S. didn't lose a single engagement in Vietnam

That, my friend, is grade A bullshit that was popularized by individuals such as Col. David Hackworth. The US lost multiple engagements in Vietnam, such as the attack on Hill 875 and the Battle of Lang Vei.

Also, Stalagmite - Who the fuck are you and why the fuck do I care about your stupid opinion? Men are talking now, go somewhere else.

[Stalagmite]

Fuck off. If I want to throw out my 2 cents I fucking will. I'm actually enjoying the debate though.