If the entire might of the US miltary turned against the population....

The U.S. military would fail.

The biggest hurdle would be the attacks from other countries taking advantage of the internal conflict. Without the combined efforts of the people, our military would quickly run out of materials to wage war, food, fuel, munitions and so on.

What makes the U.S. so deadly is its ability to produce, without production the conflict wouldn't last long.

 

The U.S. Marine Corps is the most conservative of the four branches of the military and politically in the ranks are right wing.

The U.S. Army is right of the center while the Air Force is pretty much in the center with the U.S. Navy being liberals and left of center.

The NCO Corps and the enlisted find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Unlike commissioned officer they can't resign.

But commissioned officers of the Officers Corps can resign from their commision any time they want.

We saw that happen in America back in 1861 when commissioned officer chose sides and many resigned their commissions to fight for their home states.

 

Reports?

Any actual "evidence"?

 

Dayton, someone gave an opinion without evidence, and I gave my opinion. Thus I have no moral requirement to rebut until their is evidence to rebut. You know how this works.

 

All wars are irrational and immoral, period. There is no such thing as a war to end war, that never happened in the history of mankind. Butler was right because EVERY war is a racket, always was and always will be.

 

The US population would crush the military. Could probably do it unarmed.

80% of the military is non-combat. There are probably more vets with combat experience in the general population (the best armed civilians in the world) than in the US military.

300,000 combat soldiers vs 300,000,000 people? Not to mention that the US is a nightmare terrain to fight in. Its heavily forested, people know their home territory, where as who knows with the military. The nightmare of urban combat in the middle east would be far far worse in the US.

Our military couldn't beat the vietnamese or afghanis, which were little more than civilian forces. How in the world would they beat the US civilians?

 

Uhh, I don't think you know the military. I don't think my nephew will be sending rockets into his dad's house. Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution, not to the government. But, it depends on who and why the uprising is occurring. If it is a leftist government trying to establish a tyrannical rule to enforce, say, a "green new deal" the military would not participate on the side of the government or it would be badly split. If it is a revolution by leftist tyrants trying to depose constitutional government, the military would defend the constitution against the anarchists and antifa thugs (and that would be a short fight since so many of them are soyboys).

 

You, DOconTEX, apparently do not the military.

They follow their commanders not the population.

The commanders great and small know the great numbers of the far right militias are terrorists in waiting.

The commanders do not think in terms of 'lefy' and 'righty' but in the good order and lawfulness of the country.

They will kill anybody right or left that rises up without a second thought.

 

True enough, as a guerrilla force the US population would be formidable indeed

Maybe

 

The VC were destroyed effectively and never reconstituted after Tet.

 

Right....which is why I didn’t say “all”.

 

You really think people are going to die because of stricter building codes?

Or because the government wants to give them free health care and college educations?

They might be a little incensed if someone says they are taking away their health care....oh...wait.

 

The US military could not defeat insurgencies in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, so why would the results be any different against an American insurgency?

 

Because they didn´t have to be. They were replaced by the regular North Vietnamese Army I¨d always heard

 

Speaking from experience, are we?

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
You, DOconTEX, apparently do not the military.

They follow their commanders not the population.

The commanders great and small know the great numbers of the far right militias are terrorists in waiting.

The commanders do not think in terms of 'lefy' and 'righty' but in the good order and lawfulness of the country.

They will kill anybody right or left that rises up without a second thought.

Speaking from many years of active duty in the Army, airborne infantry first and JAG Corps thereafter as a Legal NCO.

 

Well, I was in the Marines (infantry) and I didn't meet anyone who would have sided with their commanders over the people.

 

As said, the Vietcong "insurgency" was all but destroyed in 1968. For the last seven years of the war, until the fall of Saigon, the Communist part of the war was carried by the North Vietnamese regular army. When the their army stormed into Saigon and broke into the presidential palace (and other government buildings) it was spearheaded by massive numbers of tanks

 

My mistake. Were you rebutting my claim about the soldiers not being ordered to fire at Kent State? Or their officers trying to stop the firing?

 

It would not be that. It would be siding with their commanders over a small group of crazies from left or right.

 

Now what are you talking about? You were caught out. Are you trying to repair that? You are guilty of a fallacy of hasty generalization with the Kent State comment.

 

I said it, guys. You followed suit.

 

I clicked your link and did not find even one example of that. If you find one please paste it up.
I doubt that many people regardless of their politics thinks the American military will 'blow away' American civilians regardless of how obnoxious they are.

 

If crazies open fire on the American military, return fire will turn them into fertilizer.

 

I'm not sure what you were rebutting. Everything I've read about the Kent State shootings is that the National Guardsman were ordered to load their weapons (with live ammo), were ordered to fire tear gas, and possibly ordered to fire warning shots at the crowd. Nothing I've read has ever said that the commanders gave them an order to fire directly on the protestors.

And I thought that the shooting being stopped by the officers (pretty quickly actually) was well known.