by zoidberg » Fri 15 Sep 2006, 00:34:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('magician', 'a')nd this whole arguement, seen here and elseware on this site, relating to how a citizenry cannot possibly take up arms against the state, or governments in general as citizens with small arms, is utter bullshit. as if the size, proliferation, ect of your toys guarantees victory in battle. nation states cannot do asymetrical warfare. period end of story. iraq, vietnam, afghanistan (soviet and american mukery both) are shining examples of how people who make such arguements about why resistance is futile or "your guns wont stop tyranny in 4th gen warfare" ect are ignorant of history, military tactics, the limits of modern weaponry, and general state of world affairs. to those people i suggest (assuming they can read above a newspaper level) to read "the art of war" by sun tsu. it might shed some light on why we are getting our asses handed to us in iraq, and had them handed to us in Nam. oh but some asshole who only gets his news from cable and only understands his trained specialty in life will get on his high horse and talk about why we are winning in iraq and other bullshit. we are losing for the same reason the arguement they make about a weak citizenry being an ineffective fighting force is bullshit. they live there and have enough left over rusty soviet weaponry and homeade bombs that they can keep things interesting and ECONOMICALLY AND MILITARILY BLEED US DRY BY SAPPING OUR RESOURCES.
--fr coyote
Excellent reply. Exactly true. Plus in a civil situation those storm troopers depends on citizens to supply them with food, energy, everything(never-mind recruiting citizens to be stormtroopers). It doesn't take much fighting against the citizenry before you lose your ability to fight.
If the US government went around seizing property like the Soviets, it wouldn't be too long before the US was officially dead. Its too large, too diverse, too urban to be pacified with force by even a million storm troopers. Remember the US generals figured several hundred thousands troops would be necessary for Iraq. (the got about 130,000 with predictable results). Iran is a non-starter.
Heres a good web site.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/glo ... teres.html
Read his other posts. He's got a good bead on asymmetric warfare.
Edit: Urban centers a notoriously hard to hold if even only a few diehards holdout. Stalingrad anyone? I highly doubt the Nazis held anything back.
Even in Berlin at the end, with the Germans beat into a bloody pulp the Soviets lost thousands of troops going through there
"Altogether, the Berlin operation (16 April - 8 May) cost the Red Army 361,367 casualties (dead, missing, wounded and sick) and 1,997 tanks and assault guns."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Fr ... rld_War_II)#End_of_War:_April.E2.80.93May_1945
Think about it. Of course if the US nuked everything thats different, but its also virtually impossible and defeats the purpose of trying to take and hold Iraq.