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
3
0
228
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
10
0
268
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
12
3
261
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
5
4
240
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
6
1
247
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
4
1
281
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
5
1
223
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
9
1
257
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
18
0
315
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.
3
6
2
274
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.

12:57 AM · Oct 11, 2021

7
15
3
316
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
7
1
282
Replying to @Tinkzorg
Afghanistan is around the same size as Texas.
0
0
0
2
Replying to @Tinkzorg
That doesn’t even Take in to account that many if not most members of the military wouldn’t attack the people they joined to protect
1
0
0
2
Replying to @Tinkzorg
I think this hubris makes potential conflict more likely and calm efforts to point it out and deescalate tensions will make conflict less likely. Interesting post.
0
0
0
0
Replying to @Tinkzorg
What's your opinion on that? I don't think a civil war is plausible as long as America's elites remain remarkably unified by their interests and ideology. The Confederate planter class lived in a parallel universe to the Northern industrialists. There is nothing comparable today
2
0
2
6
I think a Troubles scenario is in fact exceedingly likely, over a mid-term timescale (say, two decades).
1
1
0
10