Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment: Or, taking up arms against U.S. troops (390 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, it became a real issue of concern. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy, happymisanthropy

    And neccesitated rather a lot of logistics juggling.  Our airlift capability is stretched to the limit.  And having to fly fuel in is damn expensive and requires a lot of flights.  Truck convoys get hit easily and often.

    •  Point is, it worked. (5+ / 0-)

      Unless people want to make AA missiles and such available to the public, they're not going to stop The Empire from blowing them up. The armchair commandos and their fantasies of fighting The Empire are completely detached from reality.

      "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

      by Hayate Yagami on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 08:16:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It worked temporarily.... (0+ / 0-)

        until ground routes could be restored and sufficiently secured.  

        It was not a long-term-operations solution by any means.

        •  And if you have The Empire (0+ / 0-)

          do you think it would care? You'd have forcibly secured routes in a hurry, and civilian weapons would barely dent anything, until the US Rebels fell to the state of the Iraqi insurgency. And even then, we saw how well that worked out, right?

          "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

          by Hayate Yagami on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:39:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. We declared victory and left. (0+ / 0-)


            No offense intended, but I don't think you actually know much about war, insurgency, civil war, logistics or another issue I haven't brought up yet, aircraft maintenance.  

            That last is rather my specialty, y'see.  If you want to resupply by air, long-term, you'll need a lot more planes, manpower, and even more of those vulnerable supply routes.

            We've got a lot more territory than Afghanistan, more people, far higher tech base, and a lot of folks in the general population with post-doctorate level practical knowledge in guerilla warfare.  Most (70+ %) of the military are not combat troops.  The Navy would be near-useless in an internal conflict.  You can't bomb your own infrastructure with the Air Force, or you ruin your own sources of supply and further inflame and increase your opposition....  And our current Army/Marines aren't a big enough force to secure the country.

    •  Logistics (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa, Hayate Yagami

      There were real problems in maintaining logistics chain to Afghanistan and there were examples of British bases coming close to running out of ammunition and were on reduced food rations as their logistic chain is much weaker.

      But the example of reaching the depths of Central Asia is about the most difficult logistic challenge possible and has being met for a decade, moving resources around the US against an internal rebellion, if it was required, would be easy in comparison.

      •  Not so easy. (0+ / 0-)

        How many miles of road to defend convoys on?  How many mountain passes, tunnels, bridges, drainage ditches and culverts?

        What distance between bases and fuel refineries?  Between bases?  Where are your food-stocks coming from?  Maintenance parts?  Ammo?  Replacement troops?

        That challenge has been met... barely.  With a more concerted effort at our supply lines, we'd be on our asses.  This is no secret.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site