A 3rd civil war

O.K. An all out war, but even in those wars a small percentage of casualties will force a retreat. Never is it a full slaughter. So probably , tactically speaking, a 50% casualty rate s reasonable for this debate. C1: In america a good percentage of Americans own guns. As of 2005 30% of Americans owned guns, and 12% live in a household where someone else does. 57% say they don't. http://www.gallup.com... You will point out only 30% own guns, well most gun owners own multiple firearms. I have about 21 firearms, my neighbor 30. And all have high capacity magazines except my 3 shotguns, and 2 revolvers. Plus 1 30-06 hunting rifle. All the others have a 10 round mag an up. So owning firearms will help the militias in a battle. The Warsaw ghetto uprising: Lightly armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto formed a rebellion on april 19th 1943. About 200-600 Jews armed with crappy pistols and few rifles held of 2000 highly equipped and trained German troops for a month. So look, outnumbered lightly armed Jews lost the battle, but damaged the Germans badly. You will say 'well they lost', but to the contrary. If a small amount of non-trained, under fed, lightly armed Jews can hold off the best army in the world in those days for a month, than that is something to be said. You don't have to win the battles to win the wars, I garentee if 300,000,000 Americans armed could easily beat the US and UN troops, over time. http://en.wikipedia.org... So the militias don't need to win the wars, but just kill enough of the enemy over time to ensure victory. C2: Even if the militias lose the battles, they can push Pyrrhic victory, and overtime wear down the US forces. A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat. The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius: The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war. In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his. http://en.wikipedia.org... So the catastrophic casualties force the victor to lose over time. Also notice it says that the Romans had more men, well the rebellion would too. American military size: 1,468,364 UN: 98,971 = 1,567,335 http://www.un.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... American population= 307,006,550 (U.S. Census of 2009) Guns in america: 90 guns per 100 people. http://www.reuters.com... So, 30% of americans own guns, they own a lot more that 1 because theres 90 guns per 100 people. So in a civil war, 90% of that 307 million would be armed, let me do the math for you: 276,305,895 people have the potential of being armed. So here's what i comes down to: 276,305,895 vs 1,567,335. So if the militias cause enough Pyrrhic victories than the US and the UN wold be forced to retreat/get their butts kicked. C3: Tactics The US and the UN the new military tactics. These are the new tactics: The militaries of today are largely set up to fight the 'last war' and hence have huge armoured and conventionally configured infantry formations backed up by air-forces and navies designed to support or prepare for these forces. http://en.wikipedia.org... So since we made pre-rules this tactic would be hard to use. Society has ended, goverment buildings looted before the US troops could react, the planes and air support are gone. You get infantry, tanks, and armored vehicles. And the battle is locked for the most part, most part they will be divied in later. Since your tactic of air support is gone, it would be infantry with vehicle support. But that is easily un-done. In my book, written by a military man, the showed that the military would lose, under these SAME EXACT CONDITIONS. It is easy to make molitiv cocktails, which will deal with the infantry easily. So the problem is the tanks...Well thermite bombs, easy to make, burns through armor. The Militias would be using guerrilla tactics. They would engage at night, put thermite bombs on tank engines at night so they wouldn't be seen. Also it is easy to make a dynamite mine. They would place these mines all near popular roads, so when the tanks come rolling by the metal tires die. The tank would still work, but would be un-movable, so they would abandon the tank. So after a few months, the tanks Numbers would drop. Allies The Militia would get many allies, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and the terrorists. Those third party people wont play a direct role in this, but would smuggle weapons and ammunition to the militias. So they would get more sophisticated bombs, guns, and other needed supplies. So the Militia have a REALLY good chance to win this war. C4: Modern history The 2011 Libyan civil war Similar situation, a group of citizens armed rebel against their goverment. And the no fly zone induced the same...air support options as now, none. And guess what, the rebels won! So modern history proves me right, for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: Modern history, tactics, allies (indirect), Pyrrhic victories, and gun ownership all prove me that the militias would win. If former rebellions under the same conditions can win or inflict major casualties, why cant this rebellion? Since former ones can do it, so can this one. And according to my numbers my militia have more people than the other ones, and if you look at the ratio its like 200:1. So in conclusion, the militias could beat the army in a 3rd civil war. This last site proves that a civilian army could beat the US army, in many different ways, showing the ig weakness in our armed forces: http://victorhanson.com...