Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?

Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?


The United States has without a doubt the
most heavily armed population in the world, with firearms being a part of daily life for
many Americans. While in many nations the mere sight of a
gun is an extremely rare occurrence, in the US some studies say there are almost as many
guns as there are people, while others say there are more- what is known though is that
much like American income, the majority of guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority,
with 3% of gun owners owning half of all guns in the United States. With this much firepower available to the
citizens of America, does it really stand a chance against its own military? The US military needs no introduction, it
has the world’s largest budget- more than the next seven competitors who are, in order:
China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan. Of $1.6 trillion dollars spent on military
budgets around the world, the United States accounted for thirty seven percent of the
world total. All that spending goes to support the largest
military presence on earth, with American bases spread out across every continent except
Antarctica. Greatly mistrusted for its all-encompassing
reach, US national strategy is in fact to avoid another major war such as the two world
wars and the countless wars that rocked continental Europe for centuries. US forces are therefore pre-staged in potential
conflict zones where in conjunction with local allies, their presence alone is a deterrence
to violence. The results are hard to argue with, seeing
as there have been no wars between major industrialized powers since the end of World War II. The US may not necessarily field the best
technology in every department- for instance, the Russians have for long fielded more sophisticated
anti-air and electronic warfare weapon systems- but it does bring a unique capability that
no other nation matches: the ability to field advanced technology across the board, and
not just in select areas. This makes the American military a lethal
force against any modern adversary, and has historically forced its major political adversaries
to seek out niche strategies for holding the US at bay. Russia for instance has for decades focused
not on stopping a US offensive outright, but in denying it the air power that would lead
to a quick win. To this effect they have focused on anti-air
weapon systems to knock US planes and cruise missiles out of the sky, and advanced electronic
warfare systems to disrupt the networked abilities of American weapons. While China tries to slowly build a naval
presence capable of standing up to the US, it relies on a huge stockpile of ballistic
missiles to deter the American navy- in fact, China is the only major power in the world
to have an arm of the military dedicated solely to ballistic missiles. Yet while the US military has proven time
and again it dominates the modern battlefield, it has historically had the exact same troubles
that every other military has when it comes to fighting low-intensity counter-insurgency
wars. When denied the use of its overwhelming firepower
and technological advantages, the US military is in the same boat as any other nation’s,
and must rely on low-tech, door-to-door action against insurgent forces who don’t use heavy
equipment and don’t wear uniforms. For all its military might, even the American
military has great difficulties in fighting an insurgency war. Should the American people ever rise up against
their own government, and that government authorize the use of military force against
its citizenry, the American insurgents will find themselves in an initially favorable
position against the American military. For starters, US forces are widely dispersed
around the world, meaning that unlike most nations, the least number of American combat
troops and equipment is present at home as compared to overseas. For the first few weeks of the war, the insurgents
will be able to carry out large scale operations that will become impossible once more and
more military equipment returns home. With the largest air and naval transport fleet
in the world, this initial tactical disadvantage the military will find itself in will quickly
be reversed. American insurgents could think themselves
safe from major retaliation, seeing as no country ever truly wants to destroy its own
infrastructure just to defeat an insurgency- let alone the world’s richest nation who’s
cities, highways, railways, and ports are vital arteries of global trade. Yet one of the US military’s major tactical
advantages against foreign adversaries will prove just as deadly effective against an
insurgency. Smart weapon were first developed to take
out pieces of Soviet hardware from afar with pinpoint accuracy. The ability to strike a specific target from
hundreds of miles away was a major technological offset, and a capability that Cold War Soviet
military planners greatly feared. An inventory of networked American bombs and
weapon systems could decimate entire troop formations and camouflaged artillery positions
with ease, while Soviet planes would have to rely on traditional and very inaccurate
gravity bombs and unguided rockets to strike back with. Smart weapons eventually spread around the
world, but to date no other nation has as large a stockpile, or integration, as the
US. With the ability to strike at pinpoint targets
and avoid collateral damage, American insurgents will quickly find themselves prey even in
the heart of major cities. American surveillance assets are also amongst
the best in the world. Having a nearly 20-year insurgency war under
its belt, the American military has finely tuned itself for counter-insurgent operations,
and is today the leading counter-insurgency force in the world. Not only has it developed a slew of surveillance
technologies to better locate and disrupt insurgent operations hiding amidst a civilian
population, but more important, its troops are highly trained in conducting urban warfare
ops and the traditional fight for ‘hearts and minds’. When the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in
the 80s, it did so as the world’s biggest military juggernaut and crushed all stand-up
opposition. However, within weeks the war shifted from
a conventional one to a counter-insurgency and war of attrition. The Soviets responded much in the Soviet way:
overwhelming firepower delivered very indiscriminately, and soon Soviet forces found themselves unable
to operate outside of heavily fortified positions. Any Soviet foray into the countryside would
have to be conducted with large amounts of manpower and heavy fire support, and often
it simply wasn’t worth it. The Americans on the other hand initially
did much as the Soviets, wiping out major military opposition within a matter of weeks
with overwhelming firepower. However, it was here that they showed a better
aptitude for fighting an asymmetrical war against a non-conventional foe. Wherever American firepower went, it was followed
by major civil relief programs, with a focus on building infrastructure and restoring-
if not improving- the lives of the civilian population. Very quickly a complex system of diplomatic
agreements and alliances arose between US forces and the dozens of disparate groups
who all claimed some piece of Iraq or Afghanistan for themselves. Ultimately the effort would result in a half-won
victory of sorts, which was still light years ahead of the total defeat suffered by the
Soviets. Unfortunately the US’s insistence on fighting
two insurgency wars simultaneously would force it to divide its assets, and ultimately result
in the mixed results we see today. Yet all the expertise, technology, and troop
experience gained from the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would come into play
against the US insurgents- and this time the US military will find itself with major advantages
it lacked in the Middle East. For starters, it has home field advantage,
and its forces are no longer operating within a culture they don’t understand very well. Cultural misunderstandings will be impossible,
and by understanding the American culture, the US military can better win the fight for
hearts and minds, turning many would-be insurgents from their path and garnering the support
of civilians who would have instead supported the insurgents instead. Secondly, it will be fighting to unite a nation
which actually wants to be united and has a national identity, making the process of
reestablishing a stable political system far easier than it was in the Middle East. Iraq had huge sectarian divisions that plagued
the country for decades, and were barely kept in check by an authoritarian strongman. Afghanistan was itself also only held together
by the very violent Taliban, who regularly used military power to enforce its grip over
the people. Without these authoritarian figures forcibly
uniting the nations together, Iraq and Afghanistan quickly fell to pieces that were very difficult
to put back together. Afghanistan would prove especially difficult,
as its people simply lacked the desire for national unity that nations in the West have
had for centuries. Americans however have a very strong sense
of national unity, and lack the sectarian differences and ideological conflicts that
would see the nation split up into a conglomerate of cabals in the case of national government
collapse. Sure, Democrats and Republicans may often
be eat each other’s throats, but ultimately as national tragedy after national tragedy
has shown, the American people stand united. As the old adage goes, you’re allowed to fight
with family and call them names, but if anyone else tries to hurt your family then you better
watch out. This sense of unity will make the job of counter-insurgency
far easier on American forces than it was in the middle east, and make it more difficult
for American insurgents to exploit a mistrust of the US military. Yet while American insurgents are out gunned
by the American military, they can take advantage of asymmetrical tactics to all but nullify
the US military’s overwhelming firepower. By following the same play book as the Iraq
and Afghanistan insurgencies, American insurgents could force US troops into close-quarters
battles where they couldn’t bring fire support such as air strikes or artillery bombardments
against them. American insurgents would also be able to
enjoy the advantage of fighting a near-total urban warfare campaign, given the size and
scope of US cities. As the first part of the 21st century has
proven, urban warfare is the great equalizer between military powers, as it denies most
of the technological advantages of a nation’s military. Fighting instead is door-to-door and house-to-house,
carried out by individual squads of soldiers and little more than the rifles and gadgets
they can carry on their person. With the US military numbering at just over
one million, and with potentially millions of American insurgent forces, victory for
the US military will be all but impossible. A fight between the US military and US citizens
would be a dragged out affair that would likely last as long as the overseas insurgencies. It would be less a war of weapons and more
a war of words, with both sides trying to sway the majority of the population to its
side. It’s likely that in such a war entire cities
would go rogue, with local city governments refusing to outright support the US military
or the insurgents, and simply wishing to be left out of the fighting. They would deny the military the right to
operate in its streets, but also not wish to support an insurgency which will bring
military action against it. Despite the huge glut of guns available to
American citizens, the truth is that there would be no major resupply effort courtesy
of an outside power. In the Middle East, Afghani and Iraqi insurgents
were kept well supplied by Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan- amongst other actors- and trade
routes into the war zones often went through Pakistan who refused to allow US forces to
operate inside its borders and shut them down. In an American insurgency however, there would
be no neighboring power to supply the American insurgents, and the major trade routes into
the US through which arms supplied by a foreign power could enter would all be very easily
monitored and shut down by the US military. Within a year or two of heavy fighting the
American insurgency would find itself very low on ammo and very low on usable equipment. Yet the war would take a huge toll on the
American economy as well, which would in turn directly affect the budget of the US military. With major parts of the economy disrupted
by fighting or sabotage, the US military budget would rapidly shrink, and it would no longer
be able to afford to operate its vast fleets of modern equipment. In the end, a war of attrition would settle
in, and a winner is all but impossible to declare. It would come down to a sheer matter of will,
and which side would be willing to sacrifice the most to come out the ultimate victor. Yet as each side became more desperate, their
actions would lose them the support of the population they would rely on, and thus lose
the war for hearts and minds. Who do you think would actually win a war
between the US military and its citizens? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments, and as always
if you enjoyed this video don’t forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great
content!

100 Comments

  1. about 3.5 guns per person the citizens would win mostly because it would be very difficult to force the military to in mass fire on the people they are sworn to protect.

  2. Hmm, it would be alot harder if Texas decided to support the insurgency, because Texas has it's own sudo Military, and is financialy self sufficient.

  3. If it happens, it might be where someone acts, then out of the blue challenges civilian military, police, where someone else is moved to act, then if siccessful, others jumping in, then it spreads.
    Just like cops aim guns at someone, there's there's chance of gunfire getting others to shoot.

  4. With Trump supporters threatening civil war. This could become a reality. Bernie Sanders has more support from the military than any other candidate, even Trump. If Bernie Sanders won the election and Trump convinced his supporters it was rigged, a scary situation, like this video, could actually happen.

  5. NO. See "whyname1980" and their comment, it would likely be 90 percent plus. Even Special forces would turn or solve the problem quickly themselves.

  6. You forgot to mention that their 100,000,000 gun owners in the US that is one third of the population. This is going against a army of 1,000,000. Another thing is out of those 100 million guns owner, they own around 300 million guns and even more ammo so I don't think the US citizens won't be running out of ammunition or weaponary any time soon.

  7. 30% not 3% and 47% of Americans have reported living in a home with firearms in it and I'm an American with 7 guns in my house that haven't been reported to anyone. So how many more gun owners are there here that nobody can account for ? Im confident saying you could add 10% to that at least because I'm in a rural area and I know a ton of people personally that have lots of unregistered guns. We the people would take our government down fast if need be

  8. I think people fail to realize that The US Military ARE Citizens as well and about 70% would join any insurgency as it would take a Lot to cause another American Civil War which results would affect them as well.

  9. One of the things the video fails to take into account is that the US Military is almost all US Citizens. Depending on why there is an insurgency, a large portion of the Military would potentially defect to the insurgents… and take their weapons with them.

    Additionally, the most common civilian sem-auto rifle is the AR15… lot's of people have large stockpiles of 5.56mm/.223, and when they start to run out, they'll just take what they can pick up off the battlefield, or raid military supplies. So the resupply thing isn't really going to be an issue for awhile.

  10. Yep. This creator makes the assumption that the US Military is composed of a bunch of robots or something instead of US citizens. A large portion of the military would defect.

  11. Hey isolationists…you're sick of war? You don't even what war is. Force us to retreat from the world stage and you WILL.

  12. For those in the comment section saying soldiers would just go awol, keep in mind that the circumstances matter, one example would be say trump loses the election in 2020, some of his supporters say they would start a second civil war. Honestly I think most are to cowardly to actually attempt something like that just because he lost the election, but let's say for arguments sake that several hundred thousand or even a few million try to stage a armed resistance. Most US soldiers aren't gonna side with trump over the constitution, the think they swore to protect from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Some may join the rebels, but by in large most wouldn't, and in a head to head fight it'd be a one side slaughter, some guys with AR15s wouldnt stand a chance against an A10 or a few Apaches. They'd need to become an insurgency, basically taking after the Viet Cong, and Taliban.

  13. Is anybody other than the narrator aware that the U .S. military can attack without civilian casualties or collateral damage? The reports I see show more of that than hits on hostile targets.

  14. It’s going to be more complicated to know what side will win. It all depends on the reason for the civil war. I think most US citizens will be in the fight for an income equality issue and you may see factions of the military picking sides. But if Trump doesn’t get re-elected than I think most citizens, military and civilians wouldn’t side with the insurgents.

  15. As a member of the Army I will say that when you take the oath you say literally "defend against all enemies Foren and Domestic" we go over this all the time and the military will always side with the people.

  16. Be realistic it would be trying to fight a ghost kinda like it is in Afganistan now America cant win a war if you dont know who your fighting. The Military or what's left of it after everyone leaves wouldnt just go around killing civilians and if they did there would be so many Countries coming to help the people it would be unreal.

  17. The Army has family too and I'm betting they side with the American Patriots and not the tyrannical liberal American hating communists .

  18. Numbers. If 3% of the citizenry turn, that is about 10 million insurgents. Spread over one of the largest battlefields ever known. Not only would the US government deal with a military crisis. They would deal with one of the largest refugee crises ever. Millions would be displaced and need food. Riots would break out even amongst people loyal to the government.

  19. Yes we can. Especially when you factor in that half the military would step down and help the people. If they have any pride and confidence in the constitution.

  20. You are sooooo Russian. It's illegal for U.S. Military to fight it's own citizenry within their own borders. You'd know that if you read our Constitution comrad,

  21. Do you really think that americans wouldn't use traps and explosives and shrapnel toy drones and other ways besides guns to fight tyranny of a rogue government (if they are taken away-which is a bogus argument because making guns and rounds isn't high tech)? not to mention that military soldiers also have family that may be on the opposing side of the government. Artificial soldiers might be a more pressing concern but an EMP would take them out easily and it isn't that hard to make electromagnetic pulse stations like the rural areas had made their own coop electric companies. (which they later sold to large corporations thus joining the grid).

  22. It is not the US military the US people would fight. It is the tyrants in office to be removed that the people would take down and no one of significance would defend those tyrants against the people.

  23. If you ask military personnel, there would be huge defections. The overwhelming majority of military members would not fight against its own citizens if the war was not just.

  24. They wouldn't have to. I served, my Oath was to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Only a very small percentage of my brothers and sisters would even consider obeying an unlawful order to attack US citizens. I can only speak for myself, but feel like most would agree, and would join the People.

  25. All that cash earmarked for Budgets…right. What asset, what resource, what "system" swears AN OATH, raises a right arm/hand, and declares to support and defend The Constitution, which is WE-ThePeople, and this Oath has NO expiration date. Only Traitors, in civilian or military garb, would take actions against those who seek to destroy our country. Aye. "Oaths taken, Oaths kept." If you are a Globalist NWO Satanic Pedavore Cabel Swamp Creature–your days are limited and counting down to Justice. Aye.

  26. I always thought that if you join the military you give your oath to the constitution of the United states of America not politicians that wanna be dictaters

  27. Don't forget that its likely that 50% or more of the US troops would either refuse to fight or outright defect to the civilian side.

  28. Also not mention we normally wouldn’t fight our own people because we swear allegiance to the constitution

  29. not separated? lol not anymore. the american people are at war with each other already. How long do you think it will take until they turn on the government for being ridiculuous and not serving the people like its supposed too?

  30. Most in the military are in support of the 2A. If that was the issue the insurgency was predicated upon the military would lose before it even had a chance to fight a civilian force. It would crumble from within.

  31. If you fight against your own country and its people you stop being a member of that nations military and become a member of a private army representing the ruling class alone

  32. One would hope that a large percentage of servicemen and women would lay their weapons down before attacking fellow citizens.

  33. You think the military would stay together?🤣 half would join overnight and probably sabotage some stuff on the way out!

  34. The militias will be able to negotiate. Historically after revolutions have put down thier arms it never ended well for them.

  35. The story of john titor portrays a very interesting story of how a second civil war could unfold. Especially how russia ended it by wiping out all nuclear armed countries at one time to win for the rural forces. How that be possible due to nuclear war theory and MAD i dòn't know. Maybe in the future they could have nukes acurate and fast enough to take out all other nuclear arsenals worldwide before a retaliation occurs.

  36. Here's the thing: If US soldiers don't obey their masters orders then the Elite will send NATO troops from other countries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *