Quote:
Originally Posted by Ma'ake
You're presuming a unified uprising of 300 million? In the media age, how likely is this? (Who is out of their league?)
OK, let's throw out the AC-130s... how about the A-10 Warthogs? (The same aircraft the Air Force earlier retired...well... because they had to justify spending more money on newer planes). The A10 came out of retirement as a devastating tank-killer with a 30mm gatling gun up front.
After the A10s, let's talk about the Apaches, then the F18s, then the F16s. You get the point, it's a lot more hardware than 25 aerial gunships.
My sense is if an insurgency / civil war erupted on US soil, the gloves would come off much more quickly, the insurrection would be put down quickly. It's one thing to be fighting off in a foreign land, when your own soil & nation are at stake, the intensity gets turned up a few notches, me thinks.
In Iraq & Afghanistan we're not just fighting ruthless & crazy jihadists, we're trying to win the "hearts and minds" of a Billion people. (If we sought a purely military victory, it would have been done & over by now... with lots & lots of dead people.) In the case of a "terrorist" uprising here on American soil, a central (tyrannical) government would be much more focused on a comprehensive military victory and complete demoralization of the "enemy".
|
You forgot tomahawk missiles and nuclear bombs. LOL. You are seriously out of your league.
I will agree that we could commit genocide against the Iraqi people rather easily. Historically, this is the way you put down an insurgency.
But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about an occupying and controlling force.
Where are the insurgents? Who are they among the numerous faces? Who is cooperating with them? If I kill the people I *think* are cooperating with them, won't even more people turn against me?
We can't win against guys in freaking turbans and bath robes LIVING IN CAVES, and you think it's a piece of cake to take on and occupy America. YOU ARE AN IDIOT MY FRIEND.