No, it wouldn't be possible to overthrow the government, the government wouldn't use regular troops or law enforcers, they'd use Delta Force and that is a group that cannot be fought against and won.
I say it is very possible which is why anti-2nd amendment nuts try to restrict 2nd amendment rights.There are a estimated 200 million privately own firearms in the US and only 1,473,900 active and 1,458,500 reserve in the military and not all those are combat specialties(most of those are probably support MOS)One of the justifications for a broad interpretation of the second amendment is that it allows citizens the option of overthrowing the government if things get too bad.
In short, since our military has a tanks, missiles, etc, is it even possible?
Yea, they're just invincible, and there's so many of them, too...:roll:
yeah, one thing about Delta Force is that they don't mess around. Unlike the American public who says lots of things but don't do anything to back it up. There wouldn't even be a revolution, and yeah ten percent of the population wouldn't be a hard thing to defeat for the military and Delta Force would wipe out the leaders of the rebellion really fast.
I am not so sure I agree. If that were the case than guerrilla warfare shouldn't present such a problem to our military.
Absolutely true.It all depends on how compliant the military and law enforcement would be with taking down their fellow citizens. I'm sure the government has already figured out what it would do in such an event.
As things stand right now I would say your point is a strong one. I will add a caviotte though, while people are fat, lazy, and compliant it is because things aren't bad enough to warrant effort by most people's standards, if things got to a tipping point, you would see those things change in a hurry.I agree that insurgency would cause problems but I highly doubt that the majority of Americans have that kind of revolutionary spirit. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your population is fat, lazy, and unhealthy. Most people would just sit back and be afraid.
I somewhat agree, while those skills are important, I think eventually human nature would kick in and eventually enough people would engage if a government became abusive enough, I concede that it's speculation and I don't know where that tipping point would be.The skills involved for watching your government and deciding when is the right time to act is something that needs to be cultivated. I don't think most people do that. How many people even go out and protest? I say that protestors are the minority, which is why very little ever changes.
yeah, one thing about Delta Force is that they don't mess around.
Unlike the American public who says lots of things but don't do anything to back it up. There wouldn't even be a revolution, and yeah ten percent of the population wouldn't be a hard thing to defeat for the military and Delta Force would wipe out the leaders of the rebellion really fast.
This is going basely on memory of mine, but back when Iraq was experiencing like over 100 bombs going off per month, the US military implemented something top-secret and the month after there were fewer than 10bombs going off in the whole of Iraq. The US military holds top secret weapons that are good enough to deal with any guerrilla warfare, like there is this radar that the military can use and it can spot targets on the group regardless if they are using the trees for cover, the radar can still see you. So that would help make guerilla warefare hard. And then again, Delta Force is a really good unit.
It's not like the 30 million are all going to be in one giant army. They would be divided among different factions. So it would be easier than you believe.Neither do 30 million armed insurgents. I'm not sure what you think an SF group of less than a 1,000 dudes is going to do against that.
Of course, which is why our military is having such a difficult time defeating a smaller and lesser trained insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan...:roll:
One of the justifications for a broad interpretation of the second amendment is that it allows citizens the option of overthrowing the government if things get too bad.
In short, since our military has a tanks, missiles, etc, is it even possible?
You sound like you read this stuff off the back of a cereal box. Get a clue, junior...:lol:
You're kidding right? Ever hear of the term "sleeper cell". The military could obliterate a large standing presence, that is what they are equipped for, however, a large number of people well trained and attacking multiple targets, with full mobility and relative anonymity would be a nightmare scenario.It's not like the 30 million are all going to be in one giant army. They would be divided among different factions. So it would be easier than you believe.
Stealth Radar System Sees Through Trees And Walls Undetected
Defense Technology News — By Editor on June 27, 2006 at 3:44 am
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
OSU.edu,
Columbus OH: Ohio State engineers have invented a radar system that is virtually undetectable because its signal resembles random noise. The radar could have applications in law enforcement, the military and disaster rescue.
Eric Walton, senior research scientist in Ohio State's ElectroScience Laboratory, said that with further development the technology could even be used for medical imaging. He explained why using random noise makes the radar system invisible.
"Almost all radio receivers in the world are designed to eliminate random noise so that they can clearly receive the signal they're looking for," Walton said. "Radio receivers could search for this radar signal and they wouldn't find it. It also won't interfere with TV, radio or other communication signals."
The radar scatters a very low-intensity signal across a wide range of frequencies, so a TV or radio tuned to any one frequency would interpret the radar signal as a very weak form of static.
"It doesn't interfere because it has a bandwidth that is thousands of times broader than the signals it might otherwise interfere with," Walton said.
Like traditional radar, the "noise" radar detects objects by bouncing a radio signal off them and detecting the rebound. The hardware isn't expensive, either; altogether, the components cost less than $100.
The difference is that the noise radar generates a signal that resembles random noise, and a computer calculates very small differences in the return signal. The calculations happen billions of times every second and the pattern of the signal changes constantly. A receiver couldn't detect the signal unless it knew exactly what random pattern was being used.
The radar can be tuned to penetrate solid walls - just like the waves that transmit radio and TV signals - so the military could spot enemy soldiers inside a building without the radar signal being detected, Walton said. Traffic police could measure vehicle speed without setting off drivers' radar detectors. Autonomous vehicles could tell whether a bush conceals a more dangerous obstacle, like a tree stump or a gulley.
The radar is inherently able to distinguish between many types of targets because of its ultra-wide-band characteristics. "Unfortunately, there are thousands of everyday objects that look like humans on radar - even chairs and filing cabinets," he said. So the shape of a radar image alone can't be used to identify a human. "What tends to give a human away is that he moves. He breathes, his heart beats, his body makes unintended motions."
These tiny motions could be used to locate disaster survivors who were pinned under rubble. Other radar systems can't do that because they are too far-sighted - they can't see people who are buried only a few yards away. Walton said that the noise radar is inherently able to see objects that are nearby.
"It can see things that are only a couple of inches away with as much clarity as it can see things on the surface of Mars," he added.
That means that with further development, the radar might image tumors, blood clots and foreign objects in the body. It could even measure bone density. As with all forms of medical imaging, studies would first have to determine the radar's effect on the body. The university is expected to license the patented radar system.
You're kidding right? Ever hear of the term "sleeper cell". The military could obliterate a large standing presence, that is what they are equipped for, however, a large number of people well trained and attacking multiple targets, with full mobility and relative anonymity would be a nightmare scenario.
Right, but this isn't Afghanistan or Iraq we are talking about. Many of our citizens are retired military still in young and relatively fit shape, others are well versed in martial tactics, as well, if things came to a revolt you'd have a desertion ratio among LEO's and Military if those sectors sided with the government, all would be qualified to train militants within a desired timeframe.But as we have been seeing with the insurgency in Iraq/Afghanistan these people are not so well trained. And I have my serious doubts an insurgency here would be any better in training.
But as we have been seeing with the insurgency in Iraq/Afghanistan these people are not so well trained. And I have my serious doubts an insurgency here would be any better in training.
Right, but this isn't Afghanistan or Iraq we are talking about. Many of our citizens are retired military still in young and relatively fit shape, others are well versed in martial tactics, as well, if things came to a revolt you'd have a desertion ratio among LEO's and Military if those sectors sided with the government, all would be qualified to train militants within a desired timeframe.
You don't need training to serious screw some **** up.
I agree. But still you'd want to have some training when it comes to fighting a trained military.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?