In a war between the US armed forces and American citizens, who would win?

Poll: Who would win in a war?
Poll Options
View poll results: Who would win in a war?
US armed forces
21 36%
American citizens
6 10%
The rest of the world wins
31 53%
Voters: 58.
Page 1 of 3
#1
If gun advocates greatest fear came true and the US armed forces decided to attack the citizens of America, who would win?

I personally think the armed forces would manage to whoop them in maybe a month.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#2
That depends, are they fighting on land or in the water? And do either of those groups have the ability to breathe underwater? If neither of them don't, it's clear that fighting in the water will be disastrous for both sides.
#3
Oh dear


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#4
The bears would wait until both sides were exhausted, and then attack.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#5
You shut your dirty ***** mouth


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#6
Also, whose side would the eagles be on? There aren't that many of them, I think, but they sure have some sharp talons and beaks
#8
Ordered by the federal government I would assume?
Armed forces would fail.

Why you ask?
There's a lot of people in the armed forces.
Many with friends and families.
When it came time for them to go after their own friends and families, I think that's where they would say "**** this".
#9
I'd like to think that both sides consider the importance of breathing underwater and the involvement of wildlife, yes.
#10
Quote by CodeMonk
Ordered by the federal government I would assume?
Armed forces would fail.

Why you ask?
There's a lot of people in the armed forces.
Many with friends and families.
When it came time for them to go after their own friends and families, I think that's where they would say "**** this".


You are forgetting about the SOP system

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#11
Quote by Rossenrot
Wow is this really what anti gun people think pro gun people think

lol ur dumb


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#12
Quote by CodeMonk
Ordered by the federal government I would assume?
Armed forces would fail.

Why you ask?
There's a lot of people in the armed forces.
Many with friends and families.
When it came time for them to go after their own friends and families, I think that's where they would say "**** this".


They'll be accounted for and provided sanctuary before we begin to trim the population by force.
#15
Quote by sam b
overweight slobs vs trained military personnel? hmm


but muhhhh shotgun

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#16
mcdonalds would win
Quote by ErikLensherr
Did you hear about the cockney Godfather?

He made them an offer they couldn't understand.
#17
If all the Yanks wiped each other out, I might actually visit America.
#18
Texas wins
Quote by SGstriker
If KFC is finger-licking good, then people would probably suck dicks for Popeyes. That's how good it is.


There's nothing left here to be saved
Just barreling dogs and barking trains
Another year lost to the blue line
#19
Canada, cuz eff that drama I'm dipping.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#20
Quote by ultimate-slash
Also, whose side would the eagles be on? There aren't that many of them, I think, but they sure have some sharp talons and beaks

Whoever Gandalf fights for.
#21
Quote by DardySon
Whoever Gandalf fights for.

So New Zealand wins?
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#23
Quote by Rossenrot
...

Yeah it's time for me to leave.

whimp couldn't handle the pressure


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#24
No one. Using official troops to attack the populace would result in a protracted war. The US govt doesn't have the kind of propaganda machine that could effectively quell dissenting civilians and service members. The country's too big and media is overwhelmingly privatized.

Let's assume that somehow the US military could knock out power from the country, be able to deploy troops in states foreign to those troops, convince service members that dissenters are foreign enemies of the state, and keep defection to a minimum for the first year... Why? They'd lose that war. They'll be superior in every way, but it'll cost. And after a length of time, and without foreign aid, they'll crash and burn.
#25
Would the wives of the armymenfight on the side of the population? If So the US is screwed, cause they dont have enough women in the army to repopulate the country once they kill everyone in it.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Aug 28, 2015,
#27
Anyone saying the army are not considering one vital piece of information.

The public would know the terrain
#28
Quote by welvendagreat
Anyone saying the army are not considering one vital piece of information.

The public would know the terrain


Army has satellites and spy missiles and tanks though

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#29
Public might have guns, but nothing of the firepower that the US army and special forces has. I mean we're talking /war/, and given America's track record in their own wars and their destabilising of other nations, installing dictators, Nam, etc, gotta say, I'm going for the ones with white phosphorus and military control of the majority of major means of custom.

the first thing they'd do is to destroy the means of production of weapons and vehicles. The public would be ruined within half a year if things went smoothly. US didn't get their reputation for power from nowhere..
#30
Well just ignoring the political issue behind it and dealing with the question from the angle of firepower....the Government would roll through the citizenry like shit through a goose. Airpower, tanks, ships, nukes, artillery.....and Joe Blow over here has a semi-automatic AK-47?

Forget about it.
#31
Quote by Banjocal at #33571621
Public might have guns, but nothing of the firepower that the US army and special forces has. I mean we're talking /war/, and given America's track record in their own wars and their destabilising of other nations, installing dictators, Nam, etc, gotta say, I'm going for the ones with white phosphorus and military control of the majority of major means of custom.

the first thing they'd do is to destroy the means of production of weapons and vehicles. The public would be ruined within half a year if things went smoothly. US didn't get their reputation for power from nowhere..

The key is time, though. How many enemies does the US have? How many foreign countries would jump at an opportunity for a protracted war in which no side wins? The populace would focus on small attacks to exhaust the military, the military would focus on large-scale bombardment (assuming we mean war here, not armed unrest). More boom =/= winning.

The real problem would probably be advanced weaponry. Militants would need advanced AA/AT weapons. In large metropolitan areas tanks would be illogical.

To be honest I don't know what the hell the US has lol, just basing this on Soviet weapons. I'm just assuming they wouldn't use dive bombers and stuff. Plus, civilian funding would get cut since they'll either be sympathetic to the cause or see no profit in investing in a gov't looking to bomb its own country.

The rich would just leave. Those financially supporting the gov't, whose instruments are far more expensive, would eventually walk away. Those supporting militants won't, cuz they're cheaper to help and outnumber the armed forces.

The fucked up thing is what would happen to the global economy. Most would likely come to depend on the euro or something, I dunno nothin' bout no economics.
#32
What a silly question, followed by silly (and in some cases downright stupid) answers.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#33
@Ali yeah good points, I was talking more about the sort of immediate comic-book battle setup, seeing as that's basically what's going on ITT. Basic point is if the US gov REALLY wanted the public dead for some insane reason (let's go with: HYDRA have taken over the government?) they could do it with ease.
#34
Quote by Banjocal
@Ali yeah good points, I was talking more about the sort of immediate comic-book battle setup, seeing as that's basically what's going on ITT. Basic point is if the US gov REALLY wanted the public dead for some insane reason (let's go with: HYDRA have taken over the government?) they could do it with ease.


You, and several of the posters above, are making the same mistake the British made over 200 years ago, that of assuming that the enemy will stand and fight.

This thread, and many others like it, shows an amazing lack of understanding of guerrilla warfare, insurgency and resistance operations. You can't successfully defeat (or even engage) an enemy that isn't there (but may be all around you) with conventional forces.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#35
I've decided to express my opinion about the topic of war in the form of a short poem.

War, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
War huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all
War, huh good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
#36
Quote by Arby911
You, and several of the posters above, are making the same mistake the British made over 200 years ago, that of assuming that the enemy will stand and fight.

This thread, and many others like it, shows an amazing lack of understanding of guerrilla warfare, insurgency and resistance operations. You can't successfully defeat (or even engage) an enemy that isn't there (but may be all around you) with conventional forces.

And that's why you start by nuking the major population centers.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#37
The entire premise of this thread is abhorrent and riddled with psychopathic rhetoric.

It's in the same vein as asking, "If you were to try and murder your own family, who would win?" Simply entertaining the idea shows a lack of respect for life and decency. You literally have to dehumanize everyone involved to continue the "conversation".
#38
Also lol thinking that Americans will be able to mount a guerrilla war.

A minority would, be Afghanistan America is not. Too obsessed with material possessions.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#40
Quote by Zaphikh
The entire premise of this thread is abhorrent and riddled with psychopathic rhetoric.

It's in the same vein as asking, "If you were to try and murder your own family, who would win?" Simply entertaining the idea shows a lack of respect for life and decency. You literally have to dehumanize everyone involved to continue the "conversation".

Same questions I asked TS:
Am I murdering them on land or in the water? And do any of the individuals involved have the ability to breathe underwater?

You do make a good point though
Page 1 of 3