Hacker News Reader

Comment by monoideism | Hacker News Reader

> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided

Taliban? Vietcong?

The whole argument that small arms are of no comparison to tanks and nuclear weapons are made by people who have no experience with firearms, fire fight and perimeter and assault tactics, or any type of military strategy. To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side). You would also have to assume that you could safely identify gun owners that would be willing to combat - if there's anything the US attempts to avoid (and with good reason) it is attacking non-combatants (it would be very easy to blend in to the normal population as we've seen in the Middle East). The difference here and the Civil War of 1865 was that there were clear demarcations between the sides. You would also have to assume that whatever resources you employ to launch this war would not interfere with any other outside enemy that may use this time as an opportunity to launch their own assaults (i.e. it would be a great opportunity for another 9/11). Mostly, this is a lazy half-thought-out argument.

> To even get to this point you would have to assume that the US would devolve into a civil war, in which you can also safely assume that many in the US military would be defectors (leaving a lot of empty tanks and airplanes, if not turned to the "other" side).

I hear this a lot from the right, and I think it's hogwash. The Biden administration has already begun ideological screening of military personnel. If the government is forced to go to war against its own people, it will be mostly aging, out-of-shape fanatics on one side and highly-trained, highly-motivated, younger loyalists to the legitimate government on the other. It'll be a rout.

The 'highly trained' part I doubt. Our military has been crashing its destroyers into cargo ships and bungling withdrawals lately.

This notion is a meme for good reason.

This is totally speculation on my part, but it could be important to have a armed civilian resistance to create a "permission structure" for military defection. My understanding is that military strongly inculcates loyalty and obedience to the organization. Those seem like they'd be hard feelings to overcome, especially in isolation when the defection would be solitary and likely pointless. I'd think that in a lot of cases people would just muddle along for lack of options. Having a group to join and take your equipment to seems like it would make the decision much easier.

Keep in mind that a lot of the military are your neighbors: reserves, national guard, and the like.

There's a very different record of homegrown dictators vs. foreign occupying powers in this regard.

VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.

Presumably in a war where the US government fought its citizens there would be world powers that would support the citizens, whether they wanted to help the citizens or simply weaken the US government.

I don't necessarily see that happening. No other country came in on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.

Did VC and Taliban have tanks, planes, or warships?

The VC were conveniently for the North used up in the Tet Offensive, after that it almost entirely the regular forces of the North. Who didn't need planes or warships for their second huge armored invasion after support US was withdrawn for the South.

Taliban never had the backing of Russia, what is this bs you're spreading?

The NY Times spread some misinformation that Russia had offered a bounty to the Taliban for killing American soldiers [1].

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/remember-...

https://apnews.com/article/europe-russia-taliban-f25c1a8b030...

You just shared a article saying the had contacts with them. South Korea has a contact with North as well, that is how countries operate.

If they have serious backing why aren't they lobbing ATGMs at each other the way we see nation state aided militias doing in every other conflict this century (Syria is a great example)?

The Taliban is "backed" by external powers to about the same extent the IRA was.

Who cares if they are backed. Are they fighting with small arms or not? The answer is yes.

Excellent examples that will undoubtedly be shushed away.

I disagree that they're excellent examples when you consider the difference in terrain, infrastructure, the cultural and religious differences between the combatants and the status of one side as foreign occupying force.

That seems like just shushing them away by saying they aren’t the same, when in fact those factors don’t make a difference.

There's really no way of knowing for sure, because you can't deny that many of the Talibans fought so fearlessly because of the certainty of their faith and religion.

There at plenty of people in the US who have certainty in their faith, whether it be Christianity, or the desire to confront oppression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com