0
0

[–] secEurope ago 

Prove it.

0
0

[–] Legionnaire ago 

The rebellion would be fighting the US army on its own territory. Supply lines would be short, and all servicemen would likely be called upon. So a better equipped and more numerous force than what the mohammedans have been fighting overseas.

The rebels would have no air force, no navy, and no armor. The militiamen would probably drop their weapons and flee as soon as the A-10s started doing their flyovers.

The (presumably) larger rebel force would not being able to make use of their larger numbers since supplies would run out after a few weeks of fighting. There would be scattered bands all over the US, unable to effectively communicate or coordinate attacks.

You'd have Jimbob and co in a pickup truck VS a column of Abrams and Bradley's. It would be a slaughter.

0
0

[–] secEurope ago 

Your entire analysis ignores the fact that this a volunteer military composed of citizens, many of whom would defect to the rebellion's side. This is a well-known and obvious fact. Your analysis is moot.

Furthermore, let's say that the military and government remains intact. They still can't simply win with "muh Abrams" and "muh Bradley's".

You don't understand military strategy.

0
1

[–] ExpertShitposter [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Depends on how many rebels.