# US Army v. A bunch of gun-toting rednecks **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2003, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722 "2003-07-20T09:53:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/41 "2003-07-22T03:23:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > Heh. Then… cite? Something that might at least indicate your guess is better? GRE scores? Penis size? Fastest car? Choose your weapon, sirrah, and I shall incontrovertably demonstrate the folly of your position. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/42 "2003-07-22T03:37:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Nah, the police would call in reinforcements. The city in question would get locked down, police would hunker down and wait for the National Guard. With tanks. With IR sensors. With snipers. With trained crowd control. With dogs. With helicoptors. **Like I said, a force of angry gun toting discontents wouldn’t pose much a problem at all**. The problem would lie with an organized rebellion group that plans on hitting several key locations at precisely the right time to knock out communications of the goverments and hope they can build up a force before they are aware of what is going on. But a force of potential assassins, who look like every other citizen until they put a knife into your kidney, and go back to looking like every other citizen once they’ve done what they’re trying to do would be a problem, if only because it’s hard to run a country when a large percentage of your populace considers itself at risk. I submit the recent (well, fairly recent) sniper scare here on the west coast. If that has happening with lots of people at once, all across America, there wouldn’t be the resources to put things in order. In Militia vs. Army, the Army wins every time. But I’m not so sure about Militia vs. Government that Commands Army. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/43 "2003-07-22T04:16:46Z")
**SenorBeef** , I think there are some conflicting ideas in your post. Yes, if the US government _as it exists now_ was fighting a bunch of gun-toting rednecks/militiamen/whatever, it would make every effort not to “blow up downtown Miami with a MOAB” or anything of the sort. However, if the government has “gone rogue” or become tyrannical, I don’t think that decorum would persist. That part of your example seems to deal with a government that is holding onto power due primarily - or solely - to superior manpower and the threat of violence. I don’t think a government like that would worry about the aftereffects of killing large numbers of civilians. If you provoke a government in that situation, I’d expect them to respond in kind and not worry about loss of innocent life. If it is no longer attempting to maintain power through democratic means, or even put up the facade that it is doing so - which I think would be my definition of “going rogue” - I think blasting a major city to eliminate rebels is a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/44 "2003-07-22T07:04:08Z")
I think about 99% percent of those imagining that an armed public rebellion might fly have ignored one thing (besides my repeated mention of C³). There’s an old saying: “Come the revolution, guns will litter the streets and ammunition will be like gold.” Think if every single gun store was closed down overnight. How many home reloaders are there? How many of them have stockpiled brass and powder? Do the math. This debate is nearly as relevant as **Major Kong** ’s thread about legalizing bombs. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/45 "2003-07-22T08:08:30Z")
May I suggest commentators look to actual examples in the real world? Let me point to Algeria and Iraq. Algeria, because there is a civil war for over a decade, and where an army clique , through brutality and cunning use of propaganda, has managed to more or less stay in control. Iraq, because there was a state awash in weapons, but the secret intelligence agencies kept a lid on things. Merely two examples. In the end, given modern state capacities for command and control, an “armed population” that is unable to peel off parts of the army to join an insurrection (implying state security apparat and some useful % of the population remains loyal) fails. In short, the guns are meaningless - mere tools of incidental usage. The politics and social structure is what counts. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/46 "2003-07-22T11:44:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > > * * * > > Even more in favor of the rebels, then… > > I’m not talking about an isolated group of 1-4 people taking out a few soldiers and that’s all that happens. I’m talking about a disorganized movement of thousands of groups of 1-4 people acting in whatever small way they can on a daily basis. You can’t cordon off anyone if there are thousands of small strikes all across the country. Especially with the relative manpower resources involved. \*\* So thousands of unorganized groups will just up and at the same time strike at different places? With no communication, with no strategy? I am supposed to believe that they are all just going to do the right thing, not fall into any traps, not be seen coming and win because there is lots of em? Yeah… ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/47 "2003-07-22T11:51:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*But a force of potential assassins, who look like every other citizen until they put a knife into your kidney, and go back to looking like every other citizen once they’ve done what they’re trying to do would be a problem, if only because it’s hard to run a country when a large percentage of your populace considers itself at risk. I submit the recent (well, fairly recent) sniper scare here on the west coast. If that has happening with lots of people at once, all across America, there wouldn’t be the resources to put things in order. In Militia vs. Army, the Army wins every time. But I’m not so sure about Militia vs. Government that Commands Army. \*\* And how would that be different than how forces of assasins are delt with now? Would these assasins break into military compounds and kill the “helpless” soldiers as they sleep? Sneak up on them? Yeah, thats going to happen. Sneak up on a trained soldier close enough to slip a knife in his kidney. :rolleyes: Not to mention have thousands of other assassins working alone all the the same thing at nearly the same time without organization or communication amongst themselves. If it happend once, that is the most it would happen. Again, the police would deal with it. How do the police find murderers? After all, they just slip back in to society and look just like a normal man. The sniper scare was with some nutjob killing CIVILIANS, not military personel. Big difference. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/48 "2003-07-22T12:47:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*I think about 99% percent of those imagining that an armed public rebellion might fly have ignored one thing (besides my repeated mention of C³). There’s an old saying: > > “Come the revolution, guns will litter the streets and ammunition will be like gold.” > > Think if every single gun store was closed down overnight. How many home reloaders are there? How many of them have stockpiled brass and powder? Do the math. This debate is nearly as relevant as **Major Kong** ’s thread about legalizing bombs. \*\* The shooters I know keep amunition on hand. Any where from a box or two, to thousands of rounds. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/49 "2003-07-22T13:51:11Z")
> [@](#): > > And how would that be different than how forces of assasins are delt with now? Would these assasins break into military compounds and kill the “helpless” soldiers as they sleep? Sneak up on them? Yeah, thats going to happen. Sneak up on a trained soldier close enough to slip a knife in his kidney. Arg. My point is that Soldier vs. Insurrectionist is irrelavent, as any insurrectionist with half a brain will be disrupting civil order through terrorism, not killing random and replacable soldiers. > [@](#): > > Again, the police would deal with it. How do the police find murderers? After all, they just slip back in to society and look just like a normal man. The police have enough trouble investigating and dealing with ‘normal’ murders, when they aren’t being targeted as opressive tools of the state. (Or, a lid preventing things from getting so bad that people revolt, depending on your cynicism). If people providing essential services (food transportation, fire departments, etc.) are targeted, then it’s only a matter of time before the army must be called in, and the army cannot be everywhere. Insurrectionists can. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/50 "2003-07-22T17:03:34Z")
I might point out that we are experiencing the OP’s scenario right now…in Iraq. The populace is fundamentally unfriendly, although certainly most aren’t willing to actually fight US troops. A small minority does that…but the only way to tell the difference between a person who sullenly accepts the occupation and one who is violently opposed to it is when the person pulls out a weapon and starts shooting, or drives a car bomb into a checkpoint. The big problem with the OP is that in order to tell what might happen in a Redneck vs Army scenario is that everything depends on the scenario. Set up the scenario one way and the heroic rednecks defeat the soldiers. Set it up another way and the stormtroopers crush the rednecks. Rebellions succeed, or are defeated not because of military operations but because of political operations. Do soldiers obey or resist when ordered to commit atrocities? How many people support the fascists, how many support the rebels? How bad are the rebel groups themselves…if the rebels are homegrown versions of the Shining Path then no matter how bad the government forces are people will prefer law and order. How is the economy? A fascist group couldn’t take over the country without some sort of crisis. Usually fascist movements are pretty incompatent, how organized and effective are the fascists? How exactly did the fascists sieze power, and how much of our existing power structure is co-opted? The point is you can’t just say that alien space bats have hypnotized every soldier, cop and government official and turned them into fascists. It doesn’t work that way…people support tyranny for many reasons…they are afraid, they feel tyranny gives them opportunities, they are psychopaths, they follow the crowd, etc. But they don’t just wake up one day and decide to turn fascist. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/51 "2003-07-22T18:00:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Arg. My point is that Soldier vs. Insurrectionist is irrelavent, as any insurrectionist with half a brain will be disrupting civil order through terrorism, not killing random and replacable soldiers. > > The police have enough trouble investigating and dealing with ‘normal’ murders, when they aren’t being targeted as opressive tools of the state. (Or, a lid preventing things from getting so bad that people revolt, depending on your cynicism). If people providing essential services (food transportation, fire departments, etc.) are targeted, then it’s only a matter of time before the army must be called in, and the army cannot be everywhere. Insurrectionists can. \*\* And how does terrorism count as defeating the military? How would it hinder it? I have two words for you, since describing it to you didn’t seem to work: [Police State](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Police%20state). ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/52 "2003-07-23T01:10:41Z")
A quote I remember seeing somewhere: “If you resort to violence, remember that the government is much better at it than you are.” ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/53 "2003-07-23T02:35:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Epimetheus \* > \*\*The millions of highly motivated gun owners would need an intelligence and communications network that could not be decoded by the goverment. Very unlikely, so unlikely in fact I would assign an impossiblity to it. > > \*\* So it all comes down to which side Biotop is on… ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/54 "2003-07-23T03:28:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by enipla \* > The shooters I know keep amunition on hand. Any where from a box or two, to thousands of rounds. Thank you for playing, please try again. So what? A thousand rounds can be capped off in a single fire fight. Your point is meaningless. Very few gun owners have more than a few boxes of ammunition. Rounds go bad and keeping thousands of them at hand represents a substantial investment. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/55 "2003-07-23T05:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dissonance \* > \*\ ***SenorBeef** , I apologize to you took my black helicopter comment to imply that you were in such a camp, it was an attempt to inject some levity since they are the only groups that seem to seriously worry about the US government going completely gaga (or in the case of WAR/CI, they already think the government is gaga, but well, pot, kettle, black and all that). \*\* No problem - I wasn’t sure if you were throwing in me in those camps or not, so I just said that I hoped you weren’t. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Organization at some level would be needed by such a resistance group in order for it to stand any chance of success, otherwise all it would be doing is conducting sporadic terrorist attacks in the fashion of the Weather Underground in the 1960’s and 70’s. \*\* The “sporadic” part is where we disagree. I think the US has a unique culture that’s generally distrustful of government and more self-reliant and willing to fight for their rights than other cultures. Although this is getting more washed out as time goes on. As such, if the government were ever to go rogue, and, say, declare martial law, I think there would be a far greater number of active resisters in this country than you’d find in any other western culture. I say western culture because I’m not familiar enough with non-western culture to make a judgement call. As such, I’m envisioning a large number of active resisters - people who actively go out and seek to do damage to any tyranical force. Given the number of active, armed resisters you could expect (and I realize this depends on circumstances, and perhaps I’m being overly optimistic… optimistic in terms of people willing to defend their rights with force) constant attacks of opportunity. Not a few isolated attacks per week, but hundreds of daily attacks scattered across the country. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In the event of a full scale guerilla war, such organization would develop naturally during the course of the conflict, but they would be starting out at a severe disadvantage to the government in this respect, as the government already has a highly organized military. The fighting might not have much in common with the US Civil War at first, but virtually all successful guerilla wars pass from a phase where the guerillas conduct hit and run attacks in organized military units to the point where the government forces have been so weakened that the guerillas are eventually able to stand up to the government in conventional operations and ultimately defeat the government forces in the field. Otherwise they either remain ‘terrorist’ groups or guerilla forces until the movement eventually peters out or they come to some accommodation with the existing government. \*\* This could be true, but it would depend on the nature of the conflict. A lot depends on that… but I didn’t want to envision a specific scenario in the OP because if I did so this would immeadiately degenerate into the likeliness of that specific scenario rather than the main point I wanted to address - the faulty assumption that heavy weapons would render civilian resisters useless. > [@](#): > > \*\* > With regards to the resistance forces not wanting to upset their tenuous position by exposing the civilians to overreaction and atrocity at the hands of the government, I’d only point out that virtually all revolutionary groups have used such tactics for the simple reason that they work. \*\* I think you misunderstood me - I meant to say that the government forces, not the rebel forces, would be extremely hesistant to take action that would result in heavy civilian casualties because they wouldn’t want to alienate any sort of support base. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The essence of a revolutionary philosophy is that if you’re not with us you’re against us. Allowing a middle ground is as good as surrendering, as most people, left to their own devices, would rather not get involved in violence. At the risk of a sweeping generalization, the family and friends of someone killed by government forces aren’t going to remember that he was shot by mistake or feel sympathy for the troops that killed him or her because the guerillas egged them on. All that they are going to remember is that the government killed their loved one. \*\* Indeed, and that’s why I said it would be in the government’s interest to restrict their collateral damage. Regarding the ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us’ philosophy - it would seem that the primary motive of resisters in this case would be defense of the rights of themselves and their fellow citizens. As such, I don’t think most would adopt such a philosophy. They might take action against people who directly support a tyranical regime - but I don’t think there would necesarily be bad blood with neutrals. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/56 "2003-07-23T05:53:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eolbo \* > \*\*In the scenario that is given, a rogue government that does not have the support of the population and is opposed by a popular armed uprising of millions, what is it’s incentive to restrain its use of firepower? In those circumstances I would think the gloves would come off and intimidation through mass destruction would be employed. \*\* Well, in any revolution, the bulk of the population is either neutral or not commited enough to either side to actively participate. Most people won’t stick their necks out into danger if they don’t already perceive enough danger coming their way to be significant. As such, there would be a large portion of people who didn’t have enough personal interest or sense of danger to participate actively against the government. However, if the government started killing random people on a regular basis, their perception of the situation would change and many would go from neutral to anti-government. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If the government has any popular support itself, it will replace its losses and expand its armed forces so your assumption that it will be worn down through being plinked at by rednecks seems to me dubious. \*\* Possibly. Again, it depends on the specific scenario, which I didn’t want to define, for reasons I gave in my last post. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also your contention that the armed forces will be outnumbered several times, its more probable that the army will have numerical superiority wherever it chooses to, after all it has armour, artillery and airpower and can move in concentrations which can only be matched if the militants also mass in which case their formations are exposed to destruction by overwhelming firepower to which they have no antidote other then dispersion again \*\* This is true, and this is what would prevent large, organized forces from fighting like a regular army. Regarding local superiority - that’s true, but not a huge factor. A dispersed, unorganized force with the same goal has the initiative - they choose where to attack, at weak points. A numerically inferior force, across the board, would have an extremely hard time trying to combat a larger group of dispersed rebels. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And if the government does not have any popular support what makes you think it would retain the loyalty of the military? Soldiers are citizens too. \*\* Well, I’m assuming it has at least _some_ popular support. There’s a good chance the army might be fractionalized, as I detailed in the OP. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It seems to me in this scenario you want the resisters to win and stack the scenario accordingly. \*\* Well, my intent was to challenge the idea that a hunter with a sniper rifle has no chance against a stealth bomber, more or less. My point was that because of the nature of such a conflict in this country, heavy weapons are largely negated. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > But lets not forget where the strength lies here, guerillas do not fight guerilla wars because they are strong, they fight them because they are weak and harassing tactics are their only option in the face of enemy training, discipline and firepower. Great armies are not destroyed by rednecks running through the woods, not even multitudes of them. \*\* I don’t think there’s ever been a situation like the one we’re hypothesizing about in history, as such, it’s hard to apply a rule of thumb like that. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/57 "2003-07-23T05:55:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > \*\ ***SenorBeef** , I think there are some conflicting ideas in your post. Yes, if the US government _as it exists now_ was fighting a bunch of gun-toting rednecks/militiamen/whatever, it would make every effort not to “blow up downtown Miami with a MOAB” or anything of the sort. However, if the government has “gone rogue” or become tyrannical, I don’t think that decorum would persist. That part of your example seems to deal with a government that is holding onto power due primarily - or solely - to superior manpower and the threat of violence. I don’t think a government like that would worry about the aftereffects of killing large numbers of civilians. \*\* Well, I’m conceding that only a minority of people would actively resist in any way. As described in my other post, others would be neutral or pro-government. But the government being careless and blasting the hell out of innocents would certainly change that. If the only thing the government had was the military, and no popular support whatsoever, then yes, they could use firepower as they wished. But in that case, almost everyone is a resister, not just a small minority. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If you provoke a government in that situation, I’d expect them to respond in kind and not worry about loss of innocent life. If it is no longer attempting to maintain power through democratic means, or even put up the facade that it is doing so - which I think would be my definition of “going rogue” - I think blasting a major city to eliminate rebels is a possibility. \*\* Maybe, but then again, they just went from a 10% to 80% resistance rate. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/58 "2003-07-23T05:57:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*I think about 99% percent of those imagining that an armed public rebellion might fly have ignored one thing (besides my repeated mention of C³). There’s an old saying: > > “Come the revolution, guns will litter the streets and ammunition will be like gold.” > > Think if every single gun store was closed down overnight. How many home reloaders are there? How many of them have stockpiled brass and powder? Do the math. This debate is nearly as relevant as **Major Kong** ’s thread about legalizing bombs. \*\* I don’t see this as being a huge problem. Many, many people keep a sizable stock of ammo. I’m not even a very avid shooter, and I have around 2500 rounds sitting around here in various calibers. You don’t need that much, anyway. A conventional army fighting conventional ammo needs lots of ammo - but snipers and small-unit ambushers don’t. Besides, all those kooks that have been stockpiling for this scenario can share :). ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/59 "2003-07-23T06:02:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*May I suggest commentators look to actual examples in the real world? > > Let me point to Algeria and Iraq. > > Algeria, because there is a civil war for over a decade, and where an army clique , through brutality and cunning use of propaganda, has managed to more or less stay in control. \*\* I’m not very familiar with this - does Algeria have a well armed populace with a tradition and culture supportive of throwing down a tyranical government? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Iraq, because there was a state awash in weapons, but the secret intelligence agencies kept a lid on things. > > Merely two examples. \*\* Was Iraq really ‘awash’ in weapons among the civilian populace? I honestly don’t know. In any case, it’s a different situation. Iraq has been a country under brutal regimes and monarchies for quite a long while. They haven’t developed a spirit similiar to what we have in the US. It’s not a good government suddenly going rogue, in their case, but systematic oppression for as long as they can remember. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In the end, given modern state capacities for command and control, an “armed population” that is unable to peel off parts of the army to join an insurrection (implying state security apparat and some useful % of the population remains loyal) fails. > > In short, the guns are meaningless - mere tools of incidental usage. The politics and social structure is what counts. \*\* The guns aren’t meaningless - although I admit they’re not the primary factor. The will to resist is - but the will to resist is severely weakened when the tools to resist aren’t there. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722/60 "2003-07-23T06:05:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Epimetheus \* > \*\*So thousands of unorganized groups will just up and at the same time strike at different places? With no communication, with no strategy? I am supposed to believe that they are all just going to do the right thing, not fall into any traps, not be seen coming and win because there is lots of em? Yeah… \*\* I’m imagining a scenario of a government that’s been increasing tyranical and clamping down on people in the name of security - from terrorism, or whatever the boogey man of the day is - and reaching a point, say, the declaration of martial law at which be where a lot of people draw the line. Seeing that others have begun to resist, people who’ve been considering it would join in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-v-a-bunch-of-gun-toting-rednecks/189722.md?page=4)