From: gross@eric10.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:02:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Aug16.014620.10980@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
>(William December Starr) writes:
>
>> I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
>> shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
>> rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
>> the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
>> of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
>> the conventional police, the deciding factor in any modern-day
>> American revolution/insurrection/whatever would be whether those
>> groups chose to support or oppose the government; the random
>> civilians, even those organized fairly well, would, sooner or later,
>> get squashed by the professionals if they opposed them.
>
>Actually, I would say "Yes".  Count up how many troops the feds
>could field, if they decided to go to war with it's citizenry.
>Do you think they could field 10 Million?  (~2M regulars +.... who?).
>Next count how many would defect (how many of these would actually be
>willing to fire on their own people?).  Then realize that the citizens
>might well field 60 Million.  Of course the feds have the advantage
>of nukes, tanks, etc.  But if they use them on their own citizenry,
>they will probably find that their troops all join the citizens.
>Nukes aren't effective, or smart, to use on your citizens.  If you've
>got big targets, they're great, but not against guerilla fighters (unless
>you plan to nuke the whole continent).  Tanks might be, but tank traps are
>easy enough to make.  And, as we saw in Afghanistan, anything you put in
>the field may well be captured and used against you (they didn't appear
>to be squashed...).

An interesting point of history, gentlemen, no guerilla force has ever
won a war, but neither have they lost.  The opposing force tends to
self-destruct after a while.  During the Revolutionary War with England,
the professionals couldn't deal with the Colonialist militia.  In a more
recent war, the Viet Cong did rather well against regular troops when
they caught them in the open or deep jungle.  In fact, the only two
units that seemed to strike fear into the VC were the Army Special
Forces and the Navy SEALs.  Those two units fought by the same rules and
tactics.

Should it ever become necessary to engage our government in a war, the
government would have major problems trying to cope with the guerilla
units (never forget that there are thousands of ex-military types who
are well trained in such warfare in the population) plus desertion rates
the likes of which haven't been seen before.

As for tanks and aircraft, wouldn't take much to knock them out in short
order.  Making anti-aircraft missles is not as difficult as one might
think.  And taking out tanks, while not fun, can be done by small units.

All in all, though, such a conflict would render this nation defunct for
all practical intents and purposes.

Gene Gross
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39294 talk.politics.theory:3645 alt.politics.elections:10408 alt.politics.marrou:748 alt.politics.bush:1342