During Operation Banner - the british army's operation to keep a lid on northern Ireland - they deployed at most around 20.000 troops in an area about 2% the size of Texas. The Texas national guard comes in at 18.000 men, and Texas is, well, 100% the size of Texas.
2
7
2
241
Moreover, the official casualty ratio during the (decades long) operation are fairly telling. The british army sustained 1500 killed, and killed a bit over 300 people (again, officially). Out of those 300, fully 50% of those were innocent civilians.
3
2
221
That means that the british army reported a *ten to one casualty ratio* against the enemy. Spoiler alert: the british army in fact had tanks. And aircraft, and even nuclear warheads. The IRA had none of those things. And yet the british army didn't simply roll over them.
1
9
255
So what did the IRA have, if they didn't have tanks, fixed wing aircraft, nuclear submarines, or armored cars? Well, they had AR-15s. They in fact liked them so much they even wrote a song about them! invidious.poast.org/watch?v=ehukpdse…
3
11
2
251
In closing, let's return to the US situation for a bit. The US armed forces combined will probably struggle to amass even 100.000 people you can really hand a M4 and tell to patrol Anytown, Idaho, keeping a look out for y'all Qaeda. The US army is *not* that large.
5
4
4
230
It's not designed to wage counterinsurgency in a country the size of the US, it's mostly designed to fight "near-peer competitors", to use the parlance of the Pentagon. That is, enemies that will *consent* to the sort of warfare where its shiny toys are likely to be of use!
1
5
1
236
Libs are flippant about this, because they don't understand this concept of consent. Without that consent, warfare against an enemy - especially your own population - is an *incredibly* gnarly affair.
2
3
1
270
Some estimates put the death toll of the Cristero war in Mexico to a quarter of a million people (!). The Cristeros didn't have tanks either, nor chemical weapons, recoilless rifles, airplanes, or even uniforms. And that is exactly what made the conflict so destructive.
1
4
1
217
The US is very, very big, it is incredibly polarized by region, the US army recruits from the areas that the army would likely need to suppress, and modern infrastructure is incredibly easy to disrupt. The US power grid is particularly easy to knock out.
1
8
1
246
In closing, libs simply don't know how to rule. They think this shit is somehow "free", that all a ruler has to do is press the big red button that says "boom" and then all the enemies get blown up. But that's not how it works.
1
15
300
Far from being assured of victory, the US armed forces are in fact fairly ill-prepared for any scenario approaching that of the Troubles - or especially that of the Cristero uprising. Meanwhile, all the libs can do is content themselves with fairly tales. The end.

Oct 11, 2021 · 12:44 AM UTC

3
5
2
260
Whether a civil war or a troubles scenario is *likely* is of course another question entirely, but the idea that it is *unlikely* due to "lol we'd just use our indestructible tanks to blow the chuds up" is such an incredibly foolish misconception about what warfare is.
7
13
3
303
END NOTE: the IRA in fact mostly used Armalite AR-18s, not AR-15s. Though for libs, they might as well be the same gun (and they are pretty similar in operation), which is why I stated they used AR-15. I apologize to any maga chuds who might have taken offense at this fibbing.
19
6
1
268
Replying to @Tinkzorg
Thank you, this is a good thread, but there is one "but". Any civil war will be won by the side with overwhelming air support, but if the enemy takes the big cities, it will turn into bloodbath. Assad did it and destroyed his country, but he is "monarch", not a congressman.
1
You mean like the British won in Ireland? Like the ANA and their allies defeated the Taliban? Like the South Vietnamese and their allies defeated the North?
1
1