On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
And things have changed quite a bit since the civil war. We have a very interconnected country and world. Airplanes exist now. Nuclear submarines and cruise missiles. The destructive power of our weapons has increased ten fold. And we have instant access to 24/7 new media. I don’t think we have the appetite for such a thing in this day and age. Not to mention how any number of hostile nations would be foaming at the mouth looking forward to us having our guard down.
Anything is possible I guess, even if I personally wouldn’t bet money on it. Then again I’m just a guy and no one in power is gonna ask my opinion. They very well may surprise me and bomb Jethrow’s compound or downtown Houston.
My original flippant response was triggered from the ease with which people think the US military is some unstoppable force and the Republicans that do this nonsense would easily be put down. I think it is a lot more complicated than that and no course of action would be easy and painless. That’s wishful thinking on behalf of us lefties.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
The Taliban would like a word.
On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
It would have nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The guys half way across the world from the US army, where the only thing at stake was a country they’d bombed to shit previously?
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
That’s like saying the US wouldn’t fight the confederacy because it would damage their land…
deleted by creator
And things have changed quite a bit since the civil war. We have a very interconnected country and world. Airplanes exist now. Nuclear submarines and cruise missiles. The destructive power of our weapons has increased ten fold. And we have instant access to 24/7 new media. I don’t think we have the appetite for such a thing in this day and age. Not to mention how any number of hostile nations would be foaming at the mouth looking forward to us having our guard down.
deleted by creator
Anything is possible I guess, even if I personally wouldn’t bet money on it. Then again I’m just a guy and no one in power is gonna ask my opinion. They very well may surprise me and bomb Jethrow’s compound or downtown Houston.
My original flippant response was triggered from the ease with which people think the US military is some unstoppable force and the Republicans that do this nonsense would easily be put down. I think it is a lot more complicated than that and no course of action would be easy and painless. That’s wishful thinking on behalf of us lefties.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
No?
Why would you assume it works that way.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
The Taliban had the advantage of logistics. Which we all know is important in war according to Sun Tzu.
It will be a whole lot different when they can fight on their own home turf, which they have been fortifying since whenever they arrived.