A 3rd civil war

"CON thinks that the current enemies of the US government would help the civilian militias, based on the logic that your enemys enemy is your ally. However, we must examine this hypothetical situation. "SO, in a hypothetical WW3 there will be allies, also they would get a few. I garentee al quida and iran would join the figh via black market. And the al quida maybe even literally. The allies situation is factual. In all likleyhood the UN wouldn't be involved, but I added them in to be fair. "There are many different factors that can change the result of a civil war. "Ok let me find a better example (although that one is a good one). I will use the russian invasion of aphghanistan.27 December 1979 – 15 February 1989similar situation, far from society, the only difference is that you still have air strikes. russians115,000 Afghan Government: 55,000vsMujahideen: 200,000-250,000So similar situation, the rebles have supeior numbers (but in our situation it is more vast vs you). Victor: Mujahideen. So peoplesimilar to the militia in simlar circumstaances beat an army. (except in this situation the army has more tools as sociaty still exists). So in ths senerio the militias are worse off yet win. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Who would be willing to sell? The people we have any guns are much more likely to use their guns to. .. --A. for Looting--B. for self-defense agaisnt looters--C. Attempt to fight the US Military. "The US troops would have to fight the looters too as the looters block roads and towns to loot, and the US would have to fight them. Also the US troops would have to use roads to move their vechicles, the militia would just go via foot around looter roadblocks, forcing the US and UN to clear it out. also people wlling to sell: black market. also I have shown that you can modify your gun easily all the tools you need: 1 AK-47 1 twist-tie and lots of ammunition. http://www.hackcanada.com...you can do it wiht AR's too, just move some parts in the lower receiver. . http://www.quarterbore.com...so both easy. "Through reconnaissance methods and long-range attacks, weapons stashes can easily be destroyed. NATO destroyed 30% of Qaddafi's weapons. Similarly, the US government and the UN can attack the Civilians from a distance. "SO? the militias would not have miilitary storage. Quadafi had military things. The militias would carry it with them. Also if you didn't notice the sociey has collapsed and there are no more planes (as sd above, you agreed) and I proved that artillary would be captured. "Machineguns can easily mow down large groups of fighters, if they are in the right hands. Trained military operatives are more commonly equiped with fully automatic weapons, know how to use them,"Those are not US tactics, they rarely hose as the M-16's are now 3 shot burst. Also those machineguns (the ones you inmply) haveshort effective ranges. Well they shoot far but not far accuratly. . http://en.wikipedia.org...and also history channel said so :P"CON says that my poll is outdated and therefore not relevent. " Your sites just say we need gun control. . http://www.gallup.com...this disproves your argument: guns ownership is spead out fairly evenly. 18-34= 23%35-54= 38%55 and older= 24%So young people own guns, people in their 30's and 40's own guns, and middle age people do too. You claim almost all gun is owned by old people, but this proves that a wide variety of ages o guns. "CON says that civilian militias also have ways to get supplies.1) The black market will be almost non-existant. Weapons stashes will be destroyed by constant strikes by the US/UN, and blockades can stop anyone from smuggling in weapons. "Wrong in wars all throughout history people still smuggle in weapons. Ex: warsaw ghetto. "1) It is likely that the citizens won't be able to reach the supporting forces (artillary). Before the actual foot attack, long-range attacks could occur from Canada, Mexico, or ships that are off the coast of America. "hey your contradicting yourself. You say that thy would spend months shelling the militias, but now you say they will do a fot attack. I can't refute if you contradict yourself for me. "Not all civilians will have pure feelings. "this is a refutation for the whole citizen thing. The UN troops have a history of rape and other terrible things, these terrible acts would mobilize the civilians. Also when the economy collapses so will society, it will be near anarchy. The goverment would intervene by taking away rights i. e. freedom of speech and try to end gun ownership rights. They would end freedom of speech to slow the spread of the rebellion, and try to ban guns to disarm the crowds, but these actins speak lowder then war. People will fight for thier rights, probably mobilizing forces. "The US forces have the 'MP' or 'Military Police' that help govern the ranks within the military. "seems like a response to my loyalties argument. SO? FIght becasue the MP keeps you there? If your family has the chance of being killed by a mob I garantee that people would fight to the death to escape. Also people still desert even in this time without the addd family aspect regardless of the MP. Desertions are on the rise (still even without the family aspect. So these desertions would be mass desertions): . http://www.nytimes.com... "Is it truly that easy to organize millions of people into their positions? Who goes into what squads, that make up what platoon, that make up a company, etc. Can they easily determine who's the leader, who's the most qualified? "while the chaos is erupting and the mass desertions take place and random mobs overwhelm US bases it doesn't matter. The UN would take a few weeks to arrive (proved above). Also in ambushes you only need a few leaders. The US troops would be small and spread out by the time of the UN arrival. So th emilitias would ave had a few days to work things out. The taliban doesn't have ranks as this, lol and they do ok. They have 1 leader and a few sub leaders and the fighters. A chain of comnd is easy to do. In 3rd grade we played a war game and we chose leaders easily. And it worked out fine. Sure it wasn't war but it's an example on how a chain of commad is easy. "If there are any greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military, they will all know their respective ranks"So? lower people can be greedy. Office managers steal money from their bosses all of the time. And their "low ranks" . http://www.sltrib.com... "CON claims that there will be no discipline problems within the Civilian Militias. "there will be a few but there won't be as many as you think there is. When fighting for freedom untraied people are good soldiers: look at the american revolution. I am using History to prove my points as history repeats itself. "What stopping the US/UN military from using similar tactics? "In afghanistan the taliban use hit and run and yet the US troops do not switch tactics. Again history repeas itself. "Cell phones, radios, etc, can all be monitered by the US/UN forces. "cell phones use satilites, hard to moniter. And the radios can be on different channels And the UN and the US can't moniter all of them. Also the Miltias can moniter radio too. Double edged sowrd there. I am running out of room as well. Conclusion:in debate drops count as consessions, he hasn't argued many of my main points. I have argued all of his, and a few of his sub points. He has conceded about 25% of my case to me. Also I have proved that history is on my side. And that many of his claims are falacys and or false. The militias can win this war.