Also I meant that if we forecast things, why would they?

And even volley guns were not widespread then. And maybe it's not too much a jump to go from big volley guns at a time where semiautomatic revolver technology was not developed to smaller and much faster guns that don't even use revolving technology, but it's definitely a jump to go from big volley artillery to handheld, small (to the point of hiding it in a jacket) automatic guns that can fire very fast, like a G18 or some SMGs; or to handheld (but not so hideable) rifles that although slower, can kill from kilometres away. And what about suppressors? They had hardly a clue that was coming.

Also I meant that if we forecast things, why would they?

I don't get what you mean, but what I was trying to mean is that even modern forecasts are often dubious, even though we are much better equipped to forecast - why should one hail to the builders' forecasts?

Edited 3/11/2016 04:44:17

@MGSB, you do realize going up against the US military is completely futile right?
They literally have tanks, and sadly those aren't commercially purchasable. Also, gun controls are generally targeted towards taking guns away from those who shouldn't have them(Aka psychos, criminals, etc), and limiting their lethality(You don't need a mini-gun to kill a criminal).

They literally have tanks, and sadly those aren't commercially purchasable. Also, gun controls are generally targeted towards taking guns away from those who shouldn't have them(Aka psychos, criminals, etc), and limiting their lethality(You don't need a mini-gun to kill a criminal).

I think he was advocating for putting all those things on the civilian market, though.

Well, good luck going up against the strongest military in the world(Note: I Said military, not army there's a difference).

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).
and what makes you believe a majority of people in the US are going to revolt?
Cause I'll just move to Canada if this presidential election goes too sour, as well as any leftist that believes the US is a lost cause, which just leaves the right as possible rebels, and nationalists sure as h*ll won't revolt.

Your revolutionaries are: Separatists/ State's rightists, that's a very small percentage of the US population today, and pretty much since Lincoln.

and what makes you believe a majority of people in the US are going to revolt?
Cause I'll just move to Canada if this presidential election goes too sour, as well as any leftist that believes the US is a lost cause, which just leaves the right as possible rebels, and nationalists sure as h*ll won't revolt.

Your revolutionaries are: Separatists/ State's rightists, that's a very small percentage of the US population today, and pretty much since Lincoln.

There was never a majority for the Taliban, far from it. And even if there was, the ratio would still be very small contrasted to America.

So one percent plus a raising percentage (the government will just make more enemies)? About 3 million insurgents across various terrains and have access to a near limitless amount of weapons and ammunition.

Hmmm, actually I'd say the US defeated both the talibans and the vietnamese in the military field, what made the wars to be lost was the public opinion, that was against both of them after thousands of casualties as well as the atrocities the US military did in these countries.

They could have even won these wars if they did anything to win regardless of all human rights whatsoever. I don't say they did respect those rights, but public opinion wouldn't have supported that the US won the wars by all means...

Defeating a enemy tactically is pointless if you lose strategically. This is useful for all wars.

WW2: The French and British fighting the Germans early on would usually end up with some torn up German tanks, but the Germans encircled the BEF and French in Belguim so they won strategically there.

Vietnam: The US's goal was to keep South Vietnam from being lost to the reds. They would usually win against the reds, but after all , the reds won against the south.

Afghanistan: The US's main job was to eliminate the Taliban. You know darn well that they didn't accomplish that. The US usually won tactically, but they lost the main thing.

Propoganda makes everything good. Even at the peak of antiwar demonstrations, only about 1/4 folk in America did not support the war in Vietnam.

I'd say the Taliban mostly* were slain, but they had a very good resources/folk:damage ratio.

This is just a modified and redesigned political spectrum.

http://imgur.com/p3ImSSO

The Taliban defeated the US , they didn't have the fanciest things. Neither did the Vietmanese. And if the non-governments have more people, we can also compare it to China and the US in 1951(and here the US's factories , farms and roads are much more vulnerable).

+1. Warfare is asymmetrical now. There's no need for the type of weapons the US is trying to design - advanced combat suits and lasers and sonic jets. The US defense budget is a total atrocity with the amount of waste that goes on. The truth is the US military hasn't won a war militarily in a very long time and we haven't won strategically in a very long time. The reason? That's up to debate, but there a number of factors I think. Morale and purpose - in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think soldiers really knew what they were there to do. Shock and Awe doesn't work anymore. Using civilian infrastructure as shields effectively neutralizes air power.

The US is preparing for the big one. If there is one, say NATO and Russia, the US will most likely knock down Russia with ease due to all the things on its side (giant population on the US's side, more money, more food, more resources). Very speculative though, many things could happen, but the US and NATO is much stronger than Russia.

@Major General Smedley Butler

That's why russia has nukes... Maybe you can beat them, but will NATO afford to take thousands of nuclear warheads in the processus?

There's absolutely no need to even go to war with Russia. I simply don't understand why NATO and the US think that Russia is such an existential threat when the US is more powerful militarily, diplomatically, economically, etc. Our government has become an insane warmongering apparatus. Anytime Russia or Putin does something wrong we go into hysteria as if Satan is coming to kill us. No Western European leader wouldn't even go to Russia last year to pay respect to the 75th Anniversary of the defeat of Germany in Russia. I think Americans forget that without Russia's sacrifices, most of Europe would be controlled by Nazi Germany.

I totally agree with you ^.

Maybe it's a first hahaha.

Actually a few did - I specifically recall the Czech PM raising some controversy when he went.