A 3rd civil war

==Rebuttals for the past round==Seeing that I ran out of space in the last round, I shall continue my rebuttals in this round.CON mentions that the Civilian Militias would gain many allies.1) 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. In the occurance of a civilian uprising, it is reasonable to assume that the civilians are not happy with the government and desire change. This leads us to believe that in this specific situation, the US government would be a tyrannical government. Now who would these current 'enemies' believe that the enemy is in this hypothetical situation. Right now, these opposing groups that the CON has named hate the US government and the US people. However, if the US government started to supress their people, I doubt that these enemy groups would have much resentment.CON also talks about the recent Libyan civil war.1) There are many different factors that can change the result of a civil war. The rebels received help from air strikes from NATO. These air strikes destroyed critical points in the Qaddafi's force. However, in the civil war that we are debating, it would be completey reversed. The US government pratically controls the UN and NATO and it is more probable that they will support the US government.-->The recent Libyan uprising simply supports my part. Air strikes are important in warfare, and the Civilian Militias will receive no help, but the US government will have plenty.==Defending my arguments==CON argues that civilians can get machine guns from the black market and machine guns are useless, as you can modify an AR-15 into an automatic weapon.1) 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.2) 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.3) 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, and have a control center that is organizing their movements. All of these factors will result in the complete loss of the civilian militias.CON says that my poll is outdated and therefore not relevent.1) http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org...2) http://davekopel.org...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.2) Nature? Well I suppose anyone can make and mass produce grenades from nature's resources. Or perhaps create thousands, millions, of guns?3) US/UN storages won't be present until the US/UN actually start the foot invasion. Up until then, the US/UN are likely to 'wait it out'. Blockades/sanctions and constant strikes will quickly deplete the civilians resources, destroy their morale, and break up the forces.4) I've already explained why groups that hate the US wouldn't help out the civilian militias, and even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to get past the blockade without notifying the US/UN.CON says that the citizens will engage the artillary at night and capture the weapons, then turn them on the US camps.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. I doubt that the civilian forces will be able to invade a bordering country, locate the artillery forces, and capture them. Also, I don't think that the civilian forces have the equipment to engage in a naval battle with the US Navy.CON says that the civilians are likely to unite in order to fight off the US government.1) Not all civilians will have pure feelings. Without a doubt, the corruptted people (convicted criminals, thieves, etc) will see a possibile gain in the civil war and attempt to rise up in the ranks. Greed is unadvoidable, and civilian militias are less likely to be able to fight it.2) The US forces have the 'MP' or 'Military Police' that help govern the ranks within the military. Furthermore, the military already has a 'chain of command'. http://usmilitary.about.com...The civilian forces haven't developed this form of command, which leaves them disorganized in the event of a war.CON says that the civilians can establish the ranks.1) 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?CON claims that there will be greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military.1) If there are any greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military, they will all know their respective ranks, and their goal will be to be promoted, and to do this, they must preform and show excellence. This is simply a motive for people to achieve their best.2) In the civilian militias, these greedy, selfish people do not know their ranks. They do not know their current social status. The prospect of quickly rising up while society is destroyed is simply too much for these people. More than likely, they will try underhand, corrupt tactics that cripple their fellow comrades. Perhaps they might even work for the US/UN government.CON claims that there will be no discipline problems within the Civilian Militias.1) Consider this situation within the civilian miltias. You are a civilian fighter. Within your small force, there is a shortage of food. You all know that everyone will barely have anything to eat. This would compel you to steal food and cheat your fellow comrades out of their share, simply for survival. On the other hand, the US/UN military have no shortage of supplies and they also have the MP, or the military police.2) Within this argument, con claims that it will be simply "Pop up, fire off a couple shots, set off some bombs, and run off".-->A. What stopping the US/UN military from using similar tactics? They have better intelligence on the enemy, better access to supplies, and are facing a weakened force (The long range attacks before the foot attack).CON says that when a fanatic asks you to fight with him/her agaisnt the US/UN government, a fit male can simply bring his family with him.1) CON mentions a camp and marching. This simply makes it extremely easier for government forces to locate the fighting civilian force. Undercover operatives, satellite imaging, etc., can easily find a large group of hundreds marching around and camping out.2) Since these groups are easily spotted, they are also easily slaughtered/captured. With the element of surprise, US/UN forces can bomb, gun down, ambush, etc., these large groups of civilians. Word of this will quickly spread, discouraging any more people from joining these militias.3) The majority of these fighting forces won't actually be soldiers. You have to account for the families of young children, women, seniors, etc, that cannot fight.CON says that civilians will still have communications methods and there are areas in which even satelites cannot see you.1) Cell phones, radios, etc, can all be monitered by the US/UN forces. The civilian militias will either have no communication or they could reveal everything from spying US/UN forces.-->Shutting down cell phone services would also be easy. Example: San Fransisco's BART shut down cell phone services.=Out of Room. Will Continue Next Round==