Hey, those people have guns and know how to use them.
Literally everyone being strapped or having the ability to get strapped easily is a wildcard factor in 21st century America that hasn't really been in play in most other revolutionary situations. I haven't seen anyone really engage with the proliferation of civilian firearms as a unique factor in American class struggle. Either as a liability or an asset.
Small arms are also not all that useful against police or militaries with modern body armor and armored vehicles. This is why no one gets put on a list for buying an AR-15, but they absolutely will get put on one for buying too much fertilizer. The chud fantasy of some lone prepper fighting back against the government with just themselves and their rifle would be a total failure in the real world imo.
Small arms are also not all that useful against police or militaries with modern body armor and armored vehicles.
This point is overstated. An insurgency is never going to be fighting stand up battles against a modern military in the open. It's going to be all ambushes, all the time. Take a few shots and bug out. That means the cops and the military have to stay buttoned up and wearing armor all the time, which makes it much more difficult for them to operate on the streets.
The other thing that people don't recognize or want to recognize is that yeah, in a modern urban insurgency the insurgents are going to lose 50 or 100 people for every member of the security forces who is killed. That's just how the math works for insurgencies. It's asymmetrical warfare and one of the asymmetries is that the insurgent forces are going to take vastly more casualties than the occupation forces.
As an example of small arms being used against armor - During the Chechen War snipers in apartment blocks would target the radio antennas of Russian tanks. Once the antennas were destroyed the tanks had no easy way to communicate with each other. They either had to open their hatches and yell, exposing themselves to sniper fire, or attempt to move without close coordination. This made them vastly less effective. Is it a good solution? No. But it was enough of a solution to force the Russians to make changes in how they conducted armored patrols in urban areas.
The other thing that people don’t recognize or want to recognize is that yeah, in a modern urban insurgency the insurgents are going to lose 50 or 100 people for every member of the security forces who is killed. That’s just how the math works for insurgencies. It’s asymmetrical warfare and one of the asymmetries is that the insurgent forces are going to take vastly more casualties than the occupation forces.
There's also the reverse where the state has to spend 50 to 100 times amount on counterinsurgency. Insurgents can afford to bleed blood while counterinsurgents can afford to bleed money. The faction that wins is the one that bleeds less.
Also an insurgency in the base areas where production and logistics are centered is going to be way more effective than fighting the forces of empire abroad. Likely way more difficult, but any successes would have massive effects
This. An insurgency within the boundaries of the US could strike at key infrastructure and it would be very hard for the police and military to protect everything across such a huge country. If insurgence caused serious disruption at one or two critical factories, or shut down a port, or took out an important rail bridge they could cripple the country.
Look at how much damage the Mohawk did to the Canadians by just blockading rail lines and preventing rail traffic. They didn't even have to attack any actual people but they caused massive disruption until Klanada mobilized the army and sent tanks to chase them off.
Literally everyone being strapped or having the ability to get strapped easily is a wildcard factor in 21st century America that hasn't really been in play in most other revolutionary situations. I haven't seen anyone really engage with the proliferation of civilian firearms as a unique factor in American class struggle. Either as a liability or an asset.
deleted by creator
Small arms are also not all that useful against police or militaries with modern body armor and armored vehicles. This is why no one gets put on a list for buying an AR-15, but they absolutely will get put on one for buying too much fertilizer. The chud fantasy of some lone prepper fighting back against the government with just themselves and their rifle would be a total failure in the real world imo.
This point is overstated. An insurgency is never going to be fighting stand up battles against a modern military in the open. It's going to be all ambushes, all the time. Take a few shots and bug out. That means the cops and the military have to stay buttoned up and wearing armor all the time, which makes it much more difficult for them to operate on the streets.
The other thing that people don't recognize or want to recognize is that yeah, in a modern urban insurgency the insurgents are going to lose 50 or 100 people for every member of the security forces who is killed. That's just how the math works for insurgencies. It's asymmetrical warfare and one of the asymmetries is that the insurgent forces are going to take vastly more casualties than the occupation forces.
As an example of small arms being used against armor - During the Chechen War snipers in apartment blocks would target the radio antennas of Russian tanks. Once the antennas were destroyed the tanks had no easy way to communicate with each other. They either had to open their hatches and yell, exposing themselves to sniper fire, or attempt to move without close coordination. This made them vastly less effective. Is it a good solution? No. But it was enough of a solution to force the Russians to make changes in how they conducted armored patrols in urban areas.
There's also the reverse where the state has to spend 50 to 100 times amount on counterinsurgency. Insurgents can afford to bleed blood while counterinsurgents can afford to bleed money. The faction that wins is the one that bleeds less.
Also an insurgency in the base areas where production and logistics are centered is going to be way more effective than fighting the forces of empire abroad. Likely way more difficult, but any successes would have massive effects
This. An insurgency within the boundaries of the US could strike at key infrastructure and it would be very hard for the police and military to protect everything across such a huge country. If insurgence caused serious disruption at one or two critical factories, or shut down a port, or took out an important rail bridge they could cripple the country.
Look at how much damage the Mohawk did to the Canadians by just blockading rail lines and preventing rail traffic. They didn't even have to attack any actual people but they caused massive disruption until Klanada mobilized the army and sent tanks to chase them off.
Taqbeer
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
post ukraine war that's also going to be true of eastern europe