Question about guns

[Crezth]

Even assuming, of course, that a gaggle of rubes is a match for marines in a firefight at any range.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't think the idea would be to defeat the Marines outright in the first place. At least that's not how these kind of wars work. Assuming that the side with the planes, tanks and high tech equipment always wins seems kind of short sighted to me.

 

[JohnRM]

Even assuming, of course, that a gaggle of rubes is a match for marines in a firefight at any range.

It is important to note that in any significant civil war or revolution, chances are there will be many soldiers and military units that would likely rebel.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't think the idea would be to defeat the Marines outright in the first place. At least that's not how these kind of wars work. Assuming that the side with the planes, tanks and high tech equipment always wins seems kind of short sighted to me.

And your historical precedent for a revolt by a people against a government with precision-guided munitions is...?

 

[El_Machinae]

Even assuming, of course, that a gaggle of rubes is a match for marines in a firefight at any range.

Even more reason why they'd need ICBMs.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And your historical precedent for a revolt by a people against a government with precision-guided munitions is...?

Spoiler :

Somalia '93 didn't turn out very well for us either. Iraq is still standing, but 11 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban still around making trouble, biding their time and we've officially called it quits.

Something tells me there's a little more to these kind of wars than technology and firepower.

 

[Crezth]

I don't think the idea would be to defeat the Marines outright in the first place. At least that's not how these kind of wars work. Assuming that the side with the planes, tanks and high tech equipment always wins seems kind of short sighted to me.

Well, conventionally, yes they do.

It is important to note that in any significant civil war or revolution, chances are there will be many soldiers and military units that would likely rebel.

People who should be court-martialed and hung straightaway.

Even more reason why they'd need ICBMs.

At least you're consistent.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, conventionally, yes they do.

Not at all.

People who should be court-martialed and hung straightaway.

Including these guys?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Somalia '93 didn't turn out very well for us either. Iraq is still standing, but 11 years in Afghanistan and the Taliban still around making trouble, biding their time and we've officially called it quits.

Something tells me there's a little more to these kind of wars than technology and firepower.

Something tells me that winning a war has as much to do with the will to fight it and the stones to do whatever is necessary to win it as it does with technology. But firepower doesn't hurt either:

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

(Firebombing of Dresden)

If you are williing to ruthlessly destroy a nation you are fighting and will not give up until you've done so, you have a pretty good shot of winning. The US didn't do that in any of the wars you listed. Hell, the majority of the US didn't even want to be in some of the wars you listed.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Something tells me that winning a war has as much to do with the will to fight it and the stones to do whatever is necessary to win it as it does with technology.

If you are williing to ruthlessly destroy a nation you are fighting and will not give up until you've done so, you have a pretty good shot of winning. The US didn't do that in any of the wars you listed. Hell, the majority of the US didn't even want to be in some of the wars you listed.

Yeah. That's kind of the point isn't it? That's the idea behind asymmetric warfare. It's a bit redundant if one only wants to discuss ruthless wars to death that were widely supported by the general populace because, arguably, the US has only been involved in one of those.

 

[Farm Boy]

It does play in. Superior firepower does reduce somewhat the cost required to engage in controlling a hostile population even without the will to engage in full scale slaughter. We wouldn't be willing to pay, for example, the cost of attempting to control Afghanistan with battle-axes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah. That's kind of the point isn't it? That's the idea behind asymmetric warfare. It's a bit redundant if one only wants to discuss ruthless wars to death that were widely supported by the general populace because, arguably, the US has only been involved in one of those.

I guess what I'm getting at is that asymmetric wars (as in insurgencies) only happen when you aren't willing to firebomb the enemy back to the stone age. Basically, I was critiquing your assertion that, 'Something tells me there's a little more to these kind of wars than technology and firepower.' which is clearly not always the case.

 

[bhsup]

I guess what I'm getting at is that asymmetric wars (as in insurgencies) only happen when you aren't willing to firebomb the enemy back to the stone age. Basically, I was critiquing your assertion that, 'Something tells me there's a little more to these kind of wars than technology and firepower.' which is clearly not always the case.

Yeah but think about it. If we're talking about a seceding State from the US, the US government is not going to want to bomb them back to the stone age. THey'd be fighting to keep them in the union, so they shouldn't be wanting to devastate the infrastructure by carpet bombing everything to hell or vaporize all the citizenry with nukes.

(though I confess Sherman's march does kind of contradict my claim...)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah but think about it. If we're talking about a seceding State from the US, the US government is not going to want to bomb them back to the stone age. THey'd be fighting to keep them in the union, so they shouldn't be wanting to devastate the infrastructure by carpet bombing everything to hell or vaporize all the citizenry with nukes.

No offense, but we weren't talking about the ACW for once!! Specifically, I was responding to a claim made by bugfatty about Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq II, Afghanistan and such.

(though I confess Sherman's march does kind of contradict my claim...)

It absolutely does! hahaha

I used to live in Fayetteville, NC where there are still ruined armories and other destroyed buildings from back then (and the neighboring town of Hope Mills no longer has a mill because of the war).

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah but think about it. If we're talking about a seceding State from the US, the US government is not going to want to bomb them back to the stone age. THey'd be fighting to keep them in the union, so they shouldn't be wanting to devastate the infrastructure by carpet bombing everything to hell or vaporize all the citizenry with nukes.

(though I confess Sherman's march does kind of contradict my claim...)

The longer the wars last, the more brutal they are likely to become. They may not start out too viscous, but that doesn't mean they won't end up that way. But that would also require a general uprising against the US. Not a few radicals hiding among the population.

 

[Flying Pig]

(though I confess Sherman's march does kind of contradict my claim...)

You anticipated me! - although I like to think we've moved on since then.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I guess what I'm getting at is that asymmetric wars (as in insurgencies) only happen when you aren't willing to firebomb the enemy back to the stone age.

Kind, of, yeah, maybe, but...

If you look the tonnage of bombs that were dropped on Vietnam and the massive amount air power thrown into the mix, I don't see how anyone can conclude we weren't trying to bomb the enemy into the stone age.

In fact that's literally what Curtis LeMey said we were doing in Vietnam. The bombing killed something like 50,000-100,000 civilians and untold numbers of enemy troops. And Vietnam didn't have a Ruhr Valley or any thing like that so there wasn't even that much to bomb. At many points, we were literally bombing rubble because there wasn't anything else better to bomb. Yes, there were politically sensitive targets that we shied from such as those close to the Chinese border but for the most part, but for the most part, Vietnam was bombed rather ruthlessly.

Basically, I was critiquing your assertion that, 'Something tells me there's a little more to these kind of wars than technology and firepower.' which is clearly not always the case.

I'm not sure of any major wars that were won solely through firepower and technology. Well, Gulf War and Iraq 2003 would certainly be examples. But there's almost always more to it. For instance arguably the vast supply of allied manpower or even the massive morale boost that came with the knowledge that the regimes you were fighting were truly bad were just as important in defeating Japan and Nazi Germany as bombs, tanks and planes were.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Kind, of, yeah, maybe, but...

If you look the tonnage of bombs that were dropped on Vietnam and the massive amount air power thrown into the mix, I don't see how anyone can conclude we weren't trying to bomb the enemy into the stone age.

In fact that's literally what Curtis LeMey said we were doing in Vietnam. The bombing killed something like 50,000-100,000 civilians and untold numbers of enemy troops. And Vietnam didn't have a Ruhr Valley or any thing like that so there wasn't even that much to bomb. At many points, we were literally bombing rubble because there wasn't anything else better to bomb. Yes, there were politically sensitive targets that we shied from such as those close to the Chinese border but for the most part, but for the most part, Vietnam was bombed rather ruthlessly.

But there's one other essential difference: We didn't try and occupy North Vietnam and take direct control of the entire country. We were content to bomb them and fight them in the South, but let them keep the North.

We also didn't firebomb them or go out of our way to kill all the civilians, a la WWII; raw tonnage aside.

I'm not sure of any major war that was won solely through firepower and technology. Gulf War and Iraq 2003 I suppose. But there's almost always more to it. For instance arguably the vast supply of allied manpower or even the massive morale boost that the regimes you were fighting were truly evil were just as important in defeating Japan and Nazi Germany as bombs, tanks and planes were.

There are also all of the Indian Wars on the Great Plains to consider.

But I'll give this to you: Tech and firepower are not always the deciding factors.

Though they often are, and sometimes they're the sole determining factor.

Even with regards to defeating Japan and the 3rd Reich; the manpower and morale would have meant nothing if we didn't have the tech to build planes and ships to get it over there. Or the tech to produce so many planes and ships to overwhelm them. We propped up Great Brittain and the USSR throughout the war, they both helped decide the war, and our technical abilities helped us supply them. After all, the USSR had all the manpower they needed to defeat the Germans, but they couldn't have done it without a whole lot of help with material and such.

 

[Bugfatty300]

But there's one other essential difference: We didn't try and occupy North Vietnam and take direct control of the entire country. We were content to bomb them and fight them in the South, but let them keep the North.

You should have been more specific then. Not that invading North Vietnam would have solved much in that specific conflict, quite the opposite really. But yes, generally actual occupation goes a long way.

We also didn't firebomb them or go out of our way to kill all the civilians, a la WWII; raw tonnage aside.

Which we really didn't do in WWII either. Aside from Dresden or Tokyo, the allied bombing campaigns were mostly aimed at war capacity facilities and such rather than civilians. The civilian toll was much larger because bombing was terribly inaccurate and industrial and military targets were often in very close proximity to civilian areas. Even the atomic bombs were dropped on militarized cities in lieu of bigger civilian targets. So pretty much the bombing strategy in Vietnam was not very different than the ones in WWII.

There are also all of the Indian Wars on the Great Plains to consider.

Those too had other factors. Disease and manpower. Millions of white Americans and Europeans versus the ever diminishing survivors of the near apocalyptic Columbian smallpox epidemic. And either way there wasn't really that big of a technology or firepower gap in the American Indian Wars considering the soldiers, settlers and natives were carrying the same kind of weapons. Artillery was fairly rare and too heavy to be useful in most fights with highly mobile American Indians.

But I'll give this to you: Tech and firepower are not always the deciding factors.

Though they often are, and sometimes they're the sole determining factor.

Even with regards to defeating Japan and the 3rd Reich; the manpower and morale would have meant nothing if we didn't have the tech to build planes and ships to get it over there. Or the tech to produce so many planes and ships to overwhelm them. We propped up Great Brittain and the USSR throughout the war, they both helped decide the war, and our technical abilities helped us supply them. After all, the USSR had all the manpower they needed to defeat the Germans, but they couldn't have done it without a whole lot of help with material and such.

Yeah. It's a chicken/egg thing. No reason to go in circles.

 

[Crezth]

Not at all.

No. More and better stuff wins throughout history, especially when it comes to conventional warfare. Just because you can point to a half-assed attempt by an unwilling populace to police a well-armed, die-hard region of godforsaken jungle and wetland does not mean that the resisting team wins always because zomg defender's advantage! By that logic, you might as well argue that Rome didn't do anything, or the British Empire didn't exist, or the Native Americans continue to roam the Great Plains resisting like hell because gosh darnit we just can't deal with insurrections.

Including these guys?

If you have a point to make then make it, smartass.