Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
a handful of spec forces, a few armored personnel carriers, half a dozen gunships......but that huge advantage of numbers didnt seem to register with you. The US military is less than 3 million while our adult populace is over 100 million.
You must have have had a really bad history teacher because the south was winning that war for the first half so where do you get 'having their asses handed to them'?
It wouldn't be very long before the 'uprisers' were similarly armed. Do you think we'd just leave that equipment alone? The government WOULD have to face us on even terms eventually.
I find it amusing that you have to resort to the 'nonsensical, quasi-paranoid' title like all others who can't defeat the good logical argument.
|
In the past 150 or so years where they have emerged victorious, the US has won not because of brilliant tactics or better designed weaponry but because of sheer weight of economic power. The Sherman tank is a classic example in that it wasn't the best weapon on the battlefield, but there were more of them and they were sufficiently armed to reduce the numbers of the superior German tanks. The South didn't win the Civil War because they couldn't overcome the economic dominance of the North and the sheer weight of men that the North was willing to throw into the meat grinder. Lee admitted as much before, during and after the war. The South certainly had better leadership at the outset (although that was pretty successfully countered by the latter half), but they couldn't press home their advantage in a meaningful way.
As far as any armed uprising of the American people goes, I'm willing to join the excercise, although I reject the idea that its even a remote possibility. I'll grant that its certainly possible among small groups, but a mass uprising of even 100,000 people is remote to the point of laughability.
Should such an uprising somehow occur, the rebels might start off well armed and equiped, but I think that they would find themselves running out of supplies in short order, especially if the US forces pressed the attack. Unless and until any rebel forces captured or controlled production and fuel facilities, they would run out of all the logistical supplies very quickly. Rebels would have to simulatiously seize weapons, supplies and fuel in multiple strategic areas across the country, and its highly doubtful that they could manage such an undertaking. There's also the problem as to whether or not the vox populi would follow the government or the rebels.
Sorry, but there are far too many logistical problems to ever make this any sort of reality.
EDIT - I forgot to address the actual topic of this thread. Whoops.
Just to play devil's advocate, why would someone need a machete in Massachusetts. I can understand it in Florida, and I've actually used one in Mississippi, but there's no real reason for it that I can see since it's not a very good brush cleaning tool. It's basically a one-sided short sword with an unsharpened tip. What could you possibly use it for other than as a conversation peice or to go after someone?