|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:36:33 GMT
uhh bombs is all they got.. obviously in a government overthrowing situation.. numbers are important so it would have to be alota people overthrowing the government and its actually easier than it sounds.. in this case without bombs.. numbers do matter.. the usa army is small like i said and i dont even think they are trained the best
|
|
|
|
Post by MilesEdgeworth on Mar 25, 2017 23:39:06 GMT
uhh bombs is all they got.. obviously in a government overthrowing situation.. numbers are important so it would have to be alota people overthrowing the government and its actually easier than it sounds.. in this case without bombs.. numbers do matter.. the usa army is small like i said and i dont even think they are trained the best Why does nobody here like to back up things they say? It's kind of annoying honestly. Everyone in an entire city could gang up on a single Abrams tank and not do a thing to it. And the military has thousands of them. It's "easier than it sounds" huh? Well, I'm intrigued, please walk me through the process. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:41:00 GMT
uhh bombs is all they got.. obviously in a government overthrowing situation.. numbers are important so it would have to be alota people overthrowing the government and its actually easier than it sounds.. in this case without bombs.. numbers do matter.. the usa army is small like i said and i dont even think they are trained the best Why does nobody here like to back up things they say? It's kind of annoying honestly. usa has 1.5 million active military compared to 300 million citizens not to mentioned alot of them are probably stationed over seas so in a over throw situation they wouldnt be able to come back in time |
|
|
|
Post by MilesEdgeworth on Mar 25, 2017 23:43:16 GMT
Why does nobody here like to back up things they say? It's kind of annoying honestly. usa has 1.5 million active military compared to 300 million citizens not to mentioned alot of them are probably stationed over seas so in a over throw situation they wouldnt be able to come back in time How many of those citizens are elderly, handicapped in some way, or simply children? And out of the able-bodied, how many have any sort of training? Out of the ones that have training, how many are trained to the same level of the military? Out of those few, how many have combat-like experience that would prepare them for such a conflict? Your 300 million number just got infinitely smaller I'm afraid. Any other theories? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:43:35 GMT
well you could quietly over throw a government without force or using force..
|
|
|
|
Post by senpaidesu on Mar 25, 2017 23:43:37 GMT
Your argument is literally just "because I said so" so either formulate it or mine will remain "because I said so".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:44:33 GMT
How many of those citizens are elderly, handicapped in some way, or simply children? And out of the able-bodied, how many have any sort of training? Out of the ones that have training, how many are trained to the same level of the military? Your 300 million number just got infinitely smaller I'm afraid. Any other theories? oh yeah.. because i literally meant all 300 million usa citizens will participate in the over throw what a moron |
|
|
|
Post by senpaidesu on Mar 25, 2017 23:45:33 GMT
uhh bombs is all they got.. obviously in a government overthrowing situation.. numbers are important so it would have to be alota people overthrowing the government and its actually easier than it sounds.. in this case without bombs.. numbers do matter.. the usa army is small like i said and i dont even think they are trained the best Why does nobody here like to back up things they say? It's kind of annoying honestly. Everyone in an entire city could gang up on a single Abrams tank and not do a thing to it. And the military has thousands of them. It's "easier than it sounds" huh? Well, I'm intrigued, please walk me through the process. So back up what you say. Also, pretty funny the implication that an abrahms couldn't get stopped by an entire cities worth of bodies seeing as they get stuck in fucking puddles of mud. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 23:46:16 GMT
Why does nobody here like to back up things they say? It's kind of annoying honestly. Everyone in an entire city could gang up on a single Abrams tank and not do a thing to it. And the military has thousands of them. It's "easier than it sounds" huh? Well, I'm intrigued, please walk me through the process. So back up what you say. Also, pretty funny the implication that an abrahms couldn't get stopped by an entire cities worth of bodies seeing as they get stuck in fucking puddles of mud. shh.. he might be some sort of military expert |
|
|
|
Post by MilesEdgeworth on Mar 25, 2017 23:50:03 GMT
Your argument is literally just "because I said so" so either formulate it or mine will remain "because I said so". I think you're being ambiguous because you don't actually have a well thought out argument for why they'd lose. I'll restate my position again though, and spell out the obvious. Assuming the base line we're operating from is that the armed forces would engage US citizens the following is true: - Overall, they're better trained than many of the "best case scenario" fighters you could hope for
- They have far superior gear and access to gear
- They have experience
- They have far superior intelligence gathering capacity
- They have control of the air
- They have control of the sea
- Even police grade vehicles outperform the consumer grade stuff, let alone the military's toys
- One of the biggest ones, the government controls the food
I'm sure this list could be much larger, but this should serve as a good starting point.
|
|
