Roe and Guns

[Soloist]

During the first (and second) invasions of Iraq the American military was fighting the Iraqi military, not civilian militias carrying civilian small arms. That all came much later. And these sorts of militias in Iraq and Afghanistan were armed with an endless supply of military weapons by Iran and Pakistan. As well as from looted military armories in Iraq. Not civilian weapons from the local gun store.

As for truck tires? My understanding is that most military trucks and wheeled armored vehicles have various forms of heavy run-flat tires that are more or less impervious to ordinary small-arms fire. Am I wrong about that? When you look at pictures of US convoys that were disrupted in Iraq or Afghanistan it was by enormous IEDs and weapons like RPG or suicide car bombs, not some guy on the side of the road with an AK shooting at the tires.

I am not arguing that guerilla warfare doesn't exist or isn't effective. I am arguing against the notion that unlimited civilian gun ownership in the US means that the US population is prepared to oppose an invading army. Or that the proliferation of civilian weapons in the US serves any public purpose at all.

Put another way, it isn't the fact that there is a gun shop on every street corner and a 9 mm under every pillow that deters China or Russia or some other state from planning an invasion of the US mainland. It is the US Navy, Army and Air Force.

I referenced the tires run flat tech but that is short distance and it will still cripple the vehicle if it drives too far. Its not impervious to small arms fire. A Glock likely wouldn't penetrate the tire, but a AR-15 would.
The military in Iraq and Afghanistan was defeated quickly. The up armoring tech we use now came in response to the success of the dispersed guerilla warfare
1, the guerilla's need someone who knows tactics to be effective, 2: they need timing, 3: they need intel. They wouldn't be successful attacking a MRAP but the design itself was a result of a successful guerilla war.

The MRAP program has been criticized for its high, nearly $50 billion cost,[14] the potential logistical difficulties due to high fuel consumption and varied designs, a greater disconnection between troops and the local population due to MRAPs' massive size and menacing appearance conflicting with current counter-insurgency (COIN) strategy, and unclear disposal. In 2007, it was unknown what the U.S. military would do with MRAPs following its withdrawal from Iraq, since they are expensive to transport and operate.[64][65] MRAP funding has pulled money away from other tactical vehicle programs, most noticeably the Humvee replacement, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, which has been delayed by two years.[66]

Also, these vehicles caused extensive road damage and often ran into technical problems like rollovers and road collapse from the weight.
The tactics changed in response to this to target foot soldiers more when the IED's failed to be effective. Also the guerilla's were successful at firing shape charges which were successful.
I have no stake in civilian weapons one way or another but plenty of rifles actually results in a force that needs to be countered with substantial investment of resources

[Only an Anz]

Any military powerful enough to actually launch a successful amphibious invasion of the United States is also going to be powerful enough to reduce American cities to rubble. And they will have columns of armored vehicles and aircraft that will be invulnerable to small arms fire. The notion that a bunch of overweight militia wannabees with firearms they purchased at Cabela's will slow them down is laughable.

There might very well be guerilla groups cropping up in the wake of such a hypothetical invasion. But they won't be fighting with the weapons that gun collectors have in their garages. They will be fighting with actual military weapons supplied by the military. The Taliban and ISIS did not fight with civilian weapons and handguns either. They fought with military weapons.

Ken, you're making the classic liberal mistake of assuming cities are all that matters. The USA is a massive landmass stocked with small, but powerful arms. Reducing cities to rubble does not help your supply lines, or provide food.

These are the sorts of trucks that the US military uses to maintain supply lines. This is standard military truck from a Marine convoy in Afghanistan. Is your band of rural rednecks armed with handguns and rifles going to slow down one of these? Much less a convoy of 200 trucks protected by armored infantry and helicopters? They won't even scratch the paint using the sorts of civilian weapons available at your local Cabela's. And the guy in the turret with the .50 cal heavy machine gun will turn them into compost without slowing down.

In that far-fetched scenario of an invasion of the US, maybe you do eventually start attacking supply lines. But it will be like the Ukrainians are doing it. With mines, precision-guided missiles, and artillery. Not civilian small arms that rural rednecks bought at the local gun show.

You don't think modern militaries are prepared to deal with rednecks carrying civilian small arms?

Uncharacteristically, I may have to disagree with you here. There's a lot of improvising that could potentially happen (a la Syria)

[Ken]

Uncharacteristically, I may have to disagree with you here. There's a lot of improvising that could potentially happen (a la Syria)

Understand that I am making a very specific argument. I am pushing back against the notion that the abundance of civilian firearms in the US means that the US has any sort of organized military militia, or that all those privately owned firearms means that the US would be an exceptionally difficult country to conquer and occupy. Which I think we all agree isn't going to happen anyway.

In the extremely unlikely event that the US ever does get subject to foreign military occupation and various militia bands and guerilla armies emerge of the sort that one sees in say Syria. Then they will not be armed with random civilian weapons. They will be like ISIS or the Houthi or Hezbollah or irregular troops in Ukraine and be armed with all the latest military weaponry and be operating under some sort of military command. It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs.

In other words, I am saying that the notion that a bunch of gun enthusiasts with civilian weapons is going to repel a foreign invader or even slow them down with their gun collections is an absurd reason to try to justify the unregulated proliferation of firearms in the US.

[Only an Anz]

Uncharacteristically, I may have to disagree with you here. There's a lot of improvising that could potentially happen (a la Syria)

Understand that I am making a very specific argument. I am pushing back against the notion that the abundance of civilian firearms in the US means that the US has any sort of organized military militia, or that all those privately owned firearms means that the US would be an exceptionally difficult country to conquer and occupy. Which I think we all agree isn't going to happen anyway.

In the extremely unlikely event that the US ever does get subject to foreign military occupation and various militia bands and guerilla armies emerge of the sort that one sees in say Syria. Then they will not be armed with random civilian weapons. They will be like ISIS or the Houthi or Hezbollah or irregular troops in Ukraine and be armed with all the latest military weaponry and be operating under some sort of military command. It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs.

In other words, I am saying that the notion that a bunch of gun enthusiasts with civilian weapons is going to repel a foreign invader or even slow them down with their gun collections is an absurd reason to try to justify the unregulated proliferation of firearms in the US.

"It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs."

I get that...I was referring to improvised "technicals" like rocket launchers mounted on frontloaders, etc. Tell me you've never seen those images and wondered if some of those groups didn't have a bubba from rural Kentucky in their ranks.

[Ken]

Uncharacteristically, I may have to disagree with you here. There's a lot of improvising that could potentially happen (a la Syria)

Understand that I am making a very specific argument. I am pushing back against the notion that the abundance of civilian firearms in the US means that the US has any sort of organized military militia, or that all those privately owned firearms means that the US would be an exceptionally difficult country to conquer and occupy. Which I think we all agree isn't going to happen anyway.

In the extremely unlikely event that the US ever does get subject to foreign military occupation and various militia bands and guerilla armies emerge of the sort that one sees in say Syria. Then they will not be armed with random civilian weapons. They will be like ISIS or the Houthi or Hezbollah or irregular troops in Ukraine and be armed with all the latest military weaponry and be operating under some sort of military command. It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs.

In other words, I am saying that the notion that a bunch of gun enthusiasts with civilian weapons is going to repel a foreign invader or even slow them down with their gun collections is an absurd reason to try to justify the unregulated proliferation of firearms in the US.

"It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs."

I get that...I was referring to improvised "technicals" like rocket launchers mounted on frontloaders, etc. Tell me you've never seen those images and wondered if some of those groups didn't have a bubba from rural Kentucky in their ranks.

Oh sure. In some alternative universe if there was actually some sort of guerrilla resistance to foreign occupiers happening in the US they would be armed to the teeth with every sort of high-tech military weaponry because the immense stockpiles of military weapons at bases around the country would get opened up. We have enormous warehouses of stockpiled military arms spread all around the country.

It’s not going to be a bunch of random rednecks holding the line against a modern military using assorted civilian stuff they bought at Cabala’s. In other words, the safety and freedom of this country doesn’t depend in the slightest on a bunch of gun enthusiasts with their random collections of firearms.

[Only an Anz]

Understand that I am making a very specific argument. I am pushing back against the notion that the abundance of civilian firearms in the US means that the US has any sort of organized military militia, or that all those privately owned firearms means that the US would be an exceptionally difficult country to conquer and occupy. Which I think we all agree isn't going to happen anyway.

In the extremely unlikely event that the US ever does get subject to foreign military occupation and various militia bands and guerilla armies emerge of the sort that one sees in say Syria. Then they will not be armed with random civilian weapons. They will be like ISIS or the Houthi or Hezbollah or irregular troops in Ukraine and be armed with all the latest military weaponry and be operating under some sort of military command. It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs.

In other words, I am saying that the notion that a bunch of gun enthusiasts with civilian weapons is going to repel a foreign invader or even slow them down with their gun collections is an absurd reason to try to justify the unregulated proliferation of firearms in the US.

"It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs."

I get that...I was referring to improvised "technicals" like rocket launchers mounted on frontloaders, etc. Tell me you've never seen those images and wondered if some of those groups didn't have a bubba from rural Kentucky in their ranks.

Oh sure. In some alternative universe if there was actually some sort of guerrilla resistance to foreign occupiers happening in the US they would be armed to the teeth with every sort of high-tech military weaponry because the immense stockpiles of military weapons at bases around the country would get opened up. We have enormous warehouses of stockpiled military arms spread all around the country.

It’s not going to be a bunch of random rednecks holding the line against a modern military using assorted civilian stuff they bought at Cabala’s. In other words, the safety and freedom of this country doesn’t depend in the slightest on a bunch of gun enthusiasts with their random collections of firearms.

I don't think an uprising is completely implausible. Unwise, yes. Don't know if you're a podcast person, but there's a couple fascinating ones on "It Could Happen Here" which talk about this.

Edit: there's some profanity in the podcast

[Ken]

"It won't be a bunch of random rednecks running around with their Glocks and ARs."

I get that...I was referring to improvised "technicals" like rocket launchers mounted on frontloaders, etc. Tell me you've never seen those images and wondered if some of those groups didn't have a bubba from rural Kentucky in their ranks.

Oh sure. In some alternative universe if there was actually some sort of guerrilla resistance to foreign occupiers happening in the US they would be armed to the teeth with every sort of high-tech military weaponry because the immense stockpiles of military weapons at bases around the country would get opened up. We have enormous warehouses of stockpiled military arms spread all around the country.

It’s not going to be a bunch of random rednecks holding the line against a modern military using assorted civilian stuff they bought at Cabala’s. In other words, the safety and freedom of this country doesn’t depend in the slightest on a bunch of gun enthusiasts with their random collections of firearms.

I don't think an uprising is completely implausible. Unwise, yes. Don't know if you're a podcast person, but there's a couple fascinating ones on "It Could Happen Here" which talk about this.

Edit: there's some profanity in the podcast

Well they are two separate questions.

1. Is there the potential of an armed uprising of some sort happening in this country? Sure, possible. Most likely something like what happened with the Bundy's in Utah a few years ago or in Malheur OR with the son a couple of years later. Some sort of incident or protest sparks a bunch of fellow travelers showing up with their weapons. And then it is simply a question of with how much kid gloves the government is going to treat it. They tend to try to wait those sorts of things out after the experience of Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. But if something really turns violent there is absolutely no question that the government has the resources to put anything down. But we are talking about a bunch of armed men occupying some sort of remote government installation somewhere and the government just waiting them out after they have shut off the power, water, internet, cellular communications, and food supply. We are not talking about a guerrilla army running amok across the country attacking military installations and such. People attempting that would just get gunned down or captured.

2. Is there the possibility of a foreign occupation of the US followed by some sort of violent partisan guerrilla movement. I think this is the stuff of fantasy and bad pulp fiction. At least in our lifetimes. The US may not be the strongest military everywhere on the the planet in terms of projection of force overseas. In other words, we would have a hard time conquering Beijing. But there is no other military with the long distance force projection capacity to even think about a military invasion of North America. The Chinese are a land army. They don't remotely have the sea lift capacity to sail an invasion fleet across the Pacific and invade California. They would get sunk to the bottom of the Pacific before they even got close. Russia is even weaker. They can't even sustain an invasion against a far weaker foe in their own backyard where they have railroads for supply lines leading directly back to their bases and factories. And neither Mexico nor Canada have even 1/100th of the military capacity it would take to even start to contemplate an invasion of the US.

[Josh]

Ken’s confidence in American military preparedness shows a kind of naïveté of someone who still thinks we have the greatness of the nation in 1969 or 1990 or whenever; in reality, we are a country right now missing its military recruitment goals by a rather long shot, whose military active and reserves are missing their PT targets, who just burned up most of their strategic energy stockpile, who can’t even empower an ally like Ukraine to actually win against Russia, and where a country occupied for decades like Afghanistan is now enthusiastically forging ties with China.

This is the same country which issues press releases about shipping Javelins to Ukraine but is mysteriously mute about its lack of capacity to ramp up production. (For reference, Ukraine is going through 500 a day and America produces a few thousand a year.) Before you tell me we can ramp up production, no, we can’t - we have a serious supply chain crisis which is getting worse, not better.

Wars run on energy, food, and credit. America has destroyed its energy production infrastructure, exports 25% of its oil gas (up from 5% a few years ago); food is more expensive than ever; and America is ruining its ability to raise cheap debt in global credit markets. In short, you don’t want to be depending on America to win a war right now.

[Only an Anz]

Oh sure. In some alternative universe if there was actually some sort of guerrilla resistance to foreign occupiers happening in the US they would be armed to the teeth with every sort of high-tech military weaponry because the immense stockpiles of military weapons at bases around the country would get opened up. We have enormous warehouses of stockpiled military arms spread all around the country.

It’s not going to be a bunch of random rednecks holding the line against a modern military using assorted civilian stuff they bought at Cabala’s. In other words, the safety and freedom of this country doesn’t depend in the slightest on a bunch of gun enthusiasts with their random collections of firearms.

I don't think an uprising is completely implausible. Unwise, yes. Don't know if you're a podcast person, but there's a couple fascinating ones on "It Could Happen Here" which talk about this.

Edit: there's some profanity in the podcast

Well they are two separate questions.

1. Is there the potential of an armed uprising of some sort happening in this country? Sure, possible. Most likely something like what happened with the Bundy's in Utah a few years ago or in Malheur OR with the son a couple of years later. Some sort of incident or protest sparks a bunch of fellow travelers showing up with their weapons. And then it is simply a question of with how much kid gloves the government is going to treat it. They tend to try to wait those sorts of things out after the experience of Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. But if something really turns violent there is absolutely no question that the government has the resources to put anything down. But we are talking about a bunch of armed men occupying some sort of remote government installation somewhere and the government just waiting them out after they have shut off the power, water, internet, cellular communications, and food supply. We are not talking about a guerrilla army running amok across the country attacking military installations and such. People attempting that would just get gunned down or captured.

2. Is there the possibility of a foreign occupation of the US followed by some sort of violent partisan guerrilla movement. I think this is the stuff of fantasy and bad pulp fiction. At least in our lifetimes. The US may not be the strongest military everywhere on the the planet in terms of projection of force overseas. In other words, we would have a hard time conquering Beijing. But there is no other military with the long distance force projection capacity to even think about a military invasion of North America. The Chinese are a land army. They don't remotely have the sea lift capacity to sail an invasion fleet across the Pacific and invade California. They would get sunk to the bottom of the Pacific before they even got close. Russia is even weaker. They can't even sustain an invasion against a far weaker foe in their own backyard where they have railroads for supply lines leading directly back to their bases and factories. And neither Mexico nor Canada have even 1/100th of the military capacity it would take to even start to contemplate an invasion of the US.

I still think you may find said podcast interesting:)

[Ken]

I still think you may find said podcast interesting:)

I subscribed to it. I'll listen on my next ride.