Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?

Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?


The United States has without a doubt the
most heavily armed population in the world, with firearms being a part of daily life for
many Americans. While in many nations the mere sight of a
gun is an extremely rare occurrence, in the US some studies say there are almost as many
guns as there are people, while others say there are more- what is known though is that
much like American income, the majority of guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority,
with 3% of gun owners owning half of all guns in the United States. With this much firepower available to the
citizens of America, does it really stand a chance against its own military? The US military needs no introduction, it
has the world’s largest budget- more than the next seven competitors who are, in order:
China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan. Of $1.6 trillion dollars spent on military
budgets around the world, the United States accounted for thirty seven percent of the
world total. All that spending goes to support the largest
military presence on earth, with American bases spread out across every continent except
Antarctica. Greatly mistrusted for its all-encompassing
reach, US national strategy is in fact to avoid another major war such as the two world
wars and the countless wars that rocked continental Europe for centuries. US forces are therefore pre-staged in potential
conflict zones where in conjunction with local allies, their presence alone is a deterrence
to violence. The results are hard to argue with, seeing
as there have been no wars between major industrialized powers since the end of World War II. The US may not necessarily field the best
technology in every department- for instance, the Russians have for long fielded more sophisticated
anti-air and electronic warfare weapon systems- but it does bring a unique capability that
no other nation matches: the ability to field advanced technology across the board, and
not just in select areas. This makes the American military a lethal
force against any modern adversary, and has historically forced its major political adversaries
to seek out niche strategies for holding the US at bay. Russia for instance has for decades focused
not on stopping a US offensive outright, but in denying it the air power that would lead
to a quick win. To this effect they have focused on anti-air
weapon systems to knock US planes and cruise missiles out of the sky, and advanced electronic
warfare systems to disrupt the networked abilities of American weapons. While China tries to slowly build a naval
presence capable of standing up to the US, it relies on a huge stockpile of ballistic
missiles to deter the American navy- in fact, China is the only major power in the world
to have an arm of the military dedicated solely to ballistic missiles. Yet while the US military has proven time
and again it dominates the modern battlefield, it has historically had the exact same troubles
that every other military has when it comes to fighting low-intensity counter-insurgency
wars. When denied the use of its overwhelming firepower
and technological advantages, the US military is in the same boat as any other nation’s,
and must rely on low-tech, door-to-door action against insurgent forces who don’t use heavy
equipment and don’t wear uniforms. For all its military might, even the American
military has great difficulties in fighting an insurgency war. Should the American people ever rise up against
their own government, and that government authorize the use of military force against
its citizenry, the American insurgents will find themselves in an initially favorable
position against the American military. For starters, US forces are widely dispersed
around the world, meaning that unlike most nations, the least number of American combat
troops and equipment is present at home as compared to overseas. For the first few weeks of the war, the insurgents
will be able to carry out large scale operations that will become impossible once more and
more military equipment returns home. With the largest air and naval transport fleet
in the world, this initial tactical disadvantage the military will find itself in will quickly
be reversed. American insurgents could think themselves
safe from major retaliation, seeing as no country ever truly wants to destroy its own
infrastructure just to defeat an insurgency- let alone the world’s richest nation who’s
cities, highways, railways, and ports are vital arteries of global trade. Yet one of the US military’s major tactical
advantages against foreign adversaries will prove just as deadly effective against an
insurgency. Smart weapon were first developed to take
out pieces of Soviet hardware from afar with pinpoint accuracy. The ability to strike a specific target from
hundreds of miles away was a major technological offset, and a capability that Cold War Soviet
military planners greatly feared. An inventory of networked American bombs and
weapon systems could decimate entire troop formations and camouflaged artillery positions
with ease, while Soviet planes would have to rely on traditional and very inaccurate
gravity bombs and unguided rockets to strike back with. Smart weapons eventually spread around the
world, but to date no other nation has as large a stockpile, or integration, as the
US. With the ability to strike at pinpoint targets
and avoid collateral damage, American insurgents will quickly find themselves prey even in
the heart of major cities. American surveillance assets are also amongst
the best in the world. Having a nearly 20-year insurgency war under
its belt, the American military has finely tuned itself for counter-insurgent operations,
and is today the leading counter-insurgency force in the world. Not only has it developed a slew of surveillance
technologies to better locate and disrupt insurgent operations hiding amidst a civilian
population, but more important, its troops are highly trained in conducting urban warfare
ops and the traditional fight for ‘hearts and minds’. When the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in
the 80s, it did so as the world’s biggest military juggernaut and crushed all stand-up
opposition. However, within weeks the war shifted from
a conventional one to a counter-insurgency and war of attrition. The Soviets responded much in the Soviet way:
overwhelming firepower delivered very indiscriminately, and soon Soviet forces found themselves unable
to operate outside of heavily fortified positions. Any Soviet foray into the countryside would
have to be conducted with large amounts of manpower and heavy fire support, and often
it simply wasn’t worth it. The Americans on the other hand initially
did much as the Soviets, wiping out major military opposition within a matter of weeks
with overwhelming firepower. However, it was here that they showed a better
aptitude for fighting an asymmetrical war against a non-conventional foe. Wherever American firepower went, it was followed
by major civil relief programs, with a focus on building infrastructure and restoring-
if not improving- the lives of the civilian population. Very quickly a complex system of diplomatic
agreements and alliances arose between US forces and the dozens of disparate groups
who all claimed some piece of Iraq or Afghanistan for themselves. Ultimately the effort would result in a half-won
victory of sorts, which was still light years ahead of the total defeat suffered by the
Soviets. Unfortunately the US’s insistence on fighting
two insurgency wars simultaneously would force it to divide its assets, and ultimately result
in the mixed results we see today. Yet all the expertise, technology, and troop
experience gained from the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would come into play
against the US insurgents- and this time the US military will find itself with major advantages
it lacked in the Middle East. For starters, it has home field advantage,
and its forces are no longer operating within a culture they don’t understand very well. Cultural misunderstandings will be impossible,
and by understanding the American culture, the US military can better win the fight for
hearts and minds, turning many would-be insurgents from their path and garnering the support
of civilians who would have instead supported the insurgents instead. Secondly, it will be fighting to unite a nation
which actually wants to be united and has a national identity, making the process of
reestablishing a stable political system far easier than it was in the Middle East. Iraq had huge sectarian divisions that plagued
the country for decades, and were barely kept in check by an authoritarian strongman. Afghanistan was itself also only held together
by the very violent Taliban, who regularly used military power to enforce its grip over
the people. Without these authoritarian figures forcibly
uniting the nations together, Iraq and Afghanistan quickly fell to pieces that were very difficult
to put back together. Afghanistan would prove especially difficult,
as its people simply lacked the desire for national unity that nations in the West have
had for centuries. Americans however have a very strong sense
of national unity, and lack the sectarian differences and ideological conflicts that
would see the nation split up into a conglomerate of cabals in the case of national government
collapse. Sure, Democrats and Republicans may often
be eat each other’s throats, but ultimately as national tragedy after national tragedy
has shown, the American people stand united. As the old adage goes, you’re allowed to fight
with family and call them names, but if anyone else tries to hurt your family then you better
watch out. This sense of unity will make the job of counter-insurgency
far easier on American forces than it was in the middle east, and make it more difficult
for American insurgents to exploit a mistrust of the US military. Yet while American insurgents are out gunned
by the American military, they can take advantage of asymmetrical tactics to all but nullify
the US military’s overwhelming firepower. By following the same play book as the Iraq
and Afghanistan insurgencies, American insurgents could force US troops into close-quarters
battles where they couldn’t bring fire support such as air strikes or artillery bombardments
against them. American insurgents would also be able to
enjoy the advantage of fighting a near-total urban warfare campaign, given the size and
scope of US cities. As the first part of the 21st century has
proven, urban warfare is the great equalizer between military powers, as it denies most
of the technological advantages of a nation’s military. Fighting instead is door-to-door and house-to-house,
carried out by individual squads of soldiers and little more than the rifles and gadgets
they can carry on their person. With the US military numbering at just over
one million, and with potentially millions of American insurgent forces, victory for
the US military will be all but impossible. A fight between the US military and US citizens
would be a dragged out affair that would likely last as long as the overseas insurgencies. It would be less a war of weapons and more
a war of words, with both sides trying to sway the majority of the population to its
side. It’s likely that in such a war entire cities
would go rogue, with local city governments refusing to outright support the US military
or the insurgents, and simply wishing to be left out of the fighting. They would deny the military the right to
operate in its streets, but also not wish to support an insurgency which will bring
military action against it. Despite the huge glut of guns available to
American citizens, the truth is that there would be no major resupply effort courtesy
of an outside power. In the Middle East, Afghani and Iraqi insurgents
were kept well supplied by Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan- amongst other actors- and trade
routes into the war zones often went through Pakistan who refused to allow US forces to
operate inside its borders and shut them down. In an American insurgency however, there would
be no neighboring power to supply the American insurgents, and the major trade routes into
the US through which arms supplied by a foreign power could enter would all be very easily
monitored and shut down by the US military. Within a year or two of heavy fighting the
American insurgency would find itself very low on ammo and very low on usable equipment. Yet the war would take a huge toll on the
American economy as well, which would in turn directly affect the budget of the US military. With major parts of the economy disrupted
by fighting or sabotage, the US military budget would rapidly shrink, and it would no longer
be able to afford to operate its vast fleets of modern equipment. In the end, a war of attrition would settle
in, and a winner is all but impossible to declare. It would come down to a sheer matter of will,
and which side would be willing to sacrifice the most to come out the ultimate victor. Yet as each side became more desperate, their
actions would lose them the support of the population they would rely on, and thus lose
the war for hearts and minds. Who do you think would actually win a war
between the US military and its citizens? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments, and as always
if you enjoyed this video don’t forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great
content!

Comments

  1. Post
    Author
  2. Post
    Author
  3. Post
    Author
  4. Post
    Author
  5. Post
    Author
    Tonga Smith

    And what happens when we destroy those soldiers families and property?

    The only reason us can deploy overseas is because their (soldiers) homes are safe

  6. Post
    Author
  7. Post
    Author
    Geoff Tac

    American military against American citizens? You are completely ignoring the psychological impact of fighting in American cities and the desire to come to a quick resolution. The government would have to criminalize the insurgents, but over time that would lose legitimacy as the government becomes irrelevant. The concern would be in a weakened condition the country would be susceptible to outside forces.

  8. Post
    Author
    James Baloyi

    Title: Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?

    Literally goes on for 12 minutes bragging about unity and american superiority
    smh…

  9. Post
    Author
  10. Post
    Author
    Julien Stevenson

    I think you might be upselling the "unity" of America. If we ever got to the point of an insurgency, I'm sure certain states like Texas and California would have no problem leaving the union.

  11. Post
    Author
  12. Post
    Author
  13. Post
    Author
  14. Post
    Author
  15. Post
    Author
    Oscar Hernandez

    Expected people to comment "WOLVERINES", but instead I got "area 51 and naruto running" references

    Not disappointed

  16. Post
    Author
  17. Post
    Author
  18. Post
    Author
    Martin Pierce

    8:10 very strong sense of national unity? Lack of sectarian differences and idiological conflicts?

    Libtards & conservacunts: HAHAHAHAHAHA…. 😂😂😂

  19. Post
    Author
  20. Post
    Author
  21. Post
    Author
  22. Post
    Author
    Gustavo Perez

    The video starts from an incorrect assumption, that citizens and military would stand clearly opposed to each other. Soldier are also citizen and it is ingrained in the American psyche that the military doesn’t fight its own people. The military needs the civilian population to support its activities. A more realistic scenario would be s civil war between progressives and conservatives snd the roll the military would have in this type of conflict

  23. Post
    Author
    xman577

    In a Civil War no one wins millions Would die decide what would be the reason the citizens would rise up against the government.

  24. Post
    Author
    xman577

    Your next episode or Shao should be about what happens if I try to call government takes over this country to the people

  25. Post
    Author
  26. Post
    Author
  27. Post
    Author
    cloridan Beauchamps

    running out of ammo?
    the insurgency would be looting the dead, the living and the dying for guns, ammo, artillery and supplies to ensure it doesnt happen and they'd propably be receiving supplies from russia and china

  28. Post
    Author
    jacob me

    1774: you can never fight the British the most powerful and experienced military in the world your nothing but farmers and drunks

    2019: you can never defeat the U.S military there to powerful

    Me: …

  29. Post
    Author
  30. Post
    Author
    Pouyan JR

    A great number of armed civilians will still stand no chance against a few squads with military training and tactics, even if they have access to military hardware. Just owning a gun and even knowing how to shoot properly is not enough for a combat. The key is tactics.

  31. Post
    Author
  32. Post
    Author
  33. Post
    Author
  34. Post
    Author
    rajamatt2

    #1 you forget the most important thing. Those of us in the military will not just follow orders to turn on our own. We are also citizens. For a while, Obama was discussing authorizing use of military force (drones) in the US. Talking to other army officers, I believe 30%-35% of us would immediately resign our commissions. Those of us with combat experience are more likely to turn. PEOPLE like me will not be used against Americans.

    #2 look at the Battle of Marawi…. 2 years ago. Your assumptions about urban combat are hurting.

  35. Post
    Author
    Lady Nxy

    The citizens would win. Russia already publicly stated they would help the rebel side, 2/3 of our military would side with the rebels. The government already did theoretical scenario and it showed that if there was a civil war the rebels would win.

  36. Post
    Author
  37. Post
    Author
  38. Post
    Author
  39. Post
    Author
    James Hetu

    Yeah, this video hasn't given much thought to this at all. First, the US Military are citizens and would choose sides in the war. Thus they would end up fighting themsevles.

    Second, all those guns are owned by mostly rural conservatives. They wouldn't be fighting in the city. If it was the cities rebelling, they would be starved out quickly.

    In a conservative vs liberal war, the military would side with the conservatives for the most part. Liberal cities and areas would be starved and pounded to dust. Unless Russia or China came in on their side.

  40. Post
    Author
    Alexander Nikolaus

    you forgot to comment on how much of the u.s. military would desert for the insurgency depending on what the insurgency was about

  41. Post
    Author
  42. Post
    Author
  43. Post
    Author
    Andrew Ziegler

    Only point I have to disagree with is the smuggling of ammo, arms, and supplies across the border. Drug cartels smuggle there goods across the border despite sever security. Yes there would more likely be a stronger military presence during an American insurgency yet where there is a will there is a way, and I wouldn’t be surprised if supplies are smuggled in. Everything else on point though.

  44. Post
    Author
    Carlos Turris

    Us army waste needs no intro duction few minutes later blah blah blah blah blah blah blah for to minutes just say we waste so much money on army there

  45. Post
    Author
  46. Post
    Author
  47. Post
    Author
  48. Post
    Author
  49. Post
    Author
  50. Post
    Author
    George Travers

    The American military is made up of American CITIZEN SOLDIERS. For any American commander, even the President of the US, to tell his troops to attack their own against the US constitution, would be totally crazy. Also, Look at what happened when a bunch of farmers defeated the mighty British military of crazy King George.

  51. Post
    Author
    Why

    The winner will be the military as the wars abroad are clearly aimed at making the army suitable to fight a war at home which is the biggest fear of the United States sorry Americans but you will be slaughtered on your streets by drones and will just be a number at the end of the day but let’s hope for global peace

  52. Post
    Author
  53. Post
    Author
    KageNoKarasu

    It's funny that some people believe the U.S. Military is a well oiled, and perfectly functional machine, and that tells me that those who created this have never served.
    The U.S. military (all branches, except probably AF) is a mess of cogs held together with duct tape and jzz. It's also made out of, stay with me here, U.S.citizens, who overwhelmingly will NOT shoot other citizens.
    It's the police forces that are a greater threat to the populace than U.S.military

  54. Post
    Author
  55. Post
    Author
    Shannon Mitchell

    Yeah, hate to break it to you, but America's "strong national unity" has been going out the window since the 90's. It's more divided than ever.

  56. Post
    Author
    dreamingwolf8382

    Where do you get the idea that the country ‘wants to be united’??
    There are tons of secessionist groups- to say nothing of the Huge ideological split between right and left.

  57. Post
    Author
  58. Post
    Author
    Travis Smith

    You forget. The US Citizenery is made up of alot of former military members. Also we take an oath to our people, our Constitution, not a political leader. As a. Combat veteran an Infantryman. If anyone was to have ever given me an order to unlawfully harm a US Citizen I would have blown out that persons brains giving me that order.

  59. Post
    Author
    James Manley

    I think you ignored a few facts.
    The military would desert.
    and who is going to feed that army if it doesnt go awol?

  60. Post
    Author
  61. Post
    Author
  62. Post
    Author
  63. Post
    Author
    mr f

    To defend against agressors foreign and domestic. Most of our military personnel love the USA, and their families that live here.

  64. Post
    Author
    Wolf 19Gaming

    Funny enough insurgency might not be too far off the horizon especially if disarmament Bill's get passed, bc our weapons are our freedom, if the government took our weapons and our armor then they can be a tyrannical as they want, and if it's the radicals in power then they do anything to take over and silence people, many citizens would probably take up arms to fight for their freedom like many did for freedom from the british

  65. Post
    Author
  66. Post
    Author
  67. Post
    Author
  68. Post
    Author
    Floyd Kappus

    We may experience a taste of this on September 20th at Area 51 if a lot of people decide to come down on The Governments top secret base. Will the military defend or move its secret operations out of their. That is to be seen yet. Will they find UFO's or Alien's there? or an empty base?

  69. Post
    Author
    Alex Esquivel

    99% of military personnel have family and friends in the civilian sector. So No we would never go against our people but instead would rather side with them in overthrowing a tyrannical government

  70. Post
    Author
  71. Post
    Author
    Ryan Martelino

    Tbh America can probably beat all of the continents combined. We are overpowered. Thank you for your service US Military. 🇺🇸🇺🇸

  72. Post
    Author
  73. Post
    Author
  74. Post
    Author
  75. Post
    Author
  76. Post
    Author
  77. Post
    Author
  78. Post
    Author
  79. Post
    Author
  80. Post
    Author
    Eric Bedford

    I do solemnly swear of affirm to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. First line of the oath. It would be an illegal war and almost no US Service person would engage the population of the US.

  81. Post
    Author
    Nick Vinsable

    I guess the swaying point would be the catalyst that immediately sets it off. And the first thing that happens would be a mixture of quilting & drafting followed a separation between the federal military, the individual state militaries (national guard and maybe coast guard), & local law enforcement such as county sheriffs & city police (variation due to tech & affiliation).
    Some examples of what sparks it off would be Generation Tech’s (YouTube) “what if”s, such as “what if Palpatine was President?” or “what if Jabba was President?”.

  82. Post
    Author
  83. Post
    Author
    HalfTangible

    You mentioned the potential for US citizens to side with the military or the insurgents but you didn't note the high probability that the military would simply refuse to fire on American citizens. (This is something we see even in highly authoritarian governments, let alone a democratic republic) Not all would, of course, but it's worth noting that most of the American military are themselves US citizens and could very easily switch sides. There's also the potential for the US to lose its foreign assets in such a conflict, since they would need to bring their troops home, encouraging the US government and military to try and reach a compromise with the insurgency as quickly as possible and for foreign actors to support the insurgency.

  84. Post
    Author
  85. Post
    Author
  86. Post
    Author
  87. Post
    Author
  88. Post
    Author
    S M

    Here's the better question you should be asking: "Do you really think that the US Military will willingly turn their weapons on the US citizenry?" – Answer: NO.

  89. Post
    Author
  90. Post
    Author
  91. Post
    Author
    kyle Geller

    I like the video and you put some time and thought into it. but you miss one thing, the military experience that your talking about are NOW civilians. almost 5 million veterans many saw multiple combat tours, myself included. yes there are great soldiers still in the service but the vast experience has recently in the last 10 years gotten off active duty. Never estimate a million forty-somethings with families to protect and the skills and knowledge to back it up.

  92. Post
    Author
    Justin Miller

    Not bad. But it seems several factors were not taken into account.
    1. The insurgents in the middle east are not often sitting in the planning rooms of the US military. We would have people inside the military helping to gather intel and plant false intel.
    2.Ammo starts running low (although it is actually really easy to produce your own bullets), watch youtube for 10 minutes and see how many weapons you can make at home with standard household products. Might not need as many bullets as you think.
    3. How many of the active members of the military would defect to the civilian side.

    I am curious if any of these factors would change the math.

  93. Post
    Author
    JA VB

    If an insurgency were too happen, China and Russia would use the opportunity to declare war. Then the insurgency would most likely end as they'd probably prefer any American rule, too that of a communist rule.

  94. Post
    Author
    Seguro Sincero

    It would never get that far. Government would simply need to stop writing checks and stop entitlements. Our society is so soft it couldn’t even remotely defend itself against the military. Plus the sheeple of this country couldn’t drag themselves away from TV and online video streaming services. Total capitulation in a matter of 1week.

  95. Post
    Author
  96. Post
    Author
  97. Post
    Author
  98. Post
    Author
  99. Post
    Author
    Akali Main

    The rebels could probably get guns and ammo from weapons manufacturers in the us that sympathize with their cause

  100. Post
    Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *