You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To add to this point

As for the military. Sure you have control over the non defecting members. But what if one of those defecting members happens to be in control of a nuclear sub? Big cities don't seem all that great any more, do they?

They think they have control of the cities. They think we don't know how to fight in an urban environment.

They dont, and we do. We have been fighting In the cities and mountains of the middle east for damn near 20 years non stop. I was trained in urban warfare and guerrilla tactics and I wasn't even infantry. The training our actual shooters get would make this pansy shit his pants.

The idea that even half of the veteran population would side with the soft headed faggots is laughable. A few thousand vets going to town on a city full of people who want to destroy everything the constitution stands for sounds like an absolute horror show for any opposition.

These fucking cowards have no idea what violence of action means but if they continue to pop off at the mouth about nuking middle america, like this sack of shits username says, I'll be more than happy to show them.

And as for controlling a sub or something, it would be so much worse than that.

If the military is asked to start firing on civilian targets, even if they are in open rebellion, I am confident that almost everyone would defect or at least stand down. No pilots are going to drop bombs. No tanks are going to roll in, no ships are going to bombard, no one is going to kick in doors. The only people who will follow the unlawful orders are the various police forces and that will only last while the fight is small scale. Like Waco. As soon as it gets larger and they are dealing with an actual militia the police will stand down too.

[–] One-Way_Bus 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Better not to fight in an urban environment. It is better to lay siege to them. A siege is much cheaper than going in it with losses. I'd rather get the city intact in the end rather than it be reduced to rubble.

[–] akuta 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Precisely the point of my other reply (different person than you replied to): Sieges are real shit... all of those big cities will turn to dog-eat-dog when the food lines are severed.

[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I already live in the city.

You can’t exactly lay siege from within.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 


[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

You’ll never convince me that the men and women I served with would obey orders to kill Americans for any reason.

[–] Reddit_is_shitty 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You're fucking delusional.

[–] Skyrock 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Urban warfare is always a scary prospect that is slow, full of setbacks, prone to ambushes through traps and snipers and ties up a lot of soldiers just keep secured what you have already gained.

It is better to lay siege to them, wait for the hunger riots to kick in and then just deal with the remaining survivors weakened and in low morale from hunger.