(March 2, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(March 2, 2015 at 12:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: You think so? How much success have we had against "insurgents" on their own turf of late? As a bonus, in the US...conventional forces would get to deal with all sorts of specialized little groups (it;s not like our foreign conflicts, dominated by single terrain types). The US has the potential to be an absolute clinic in how to bleed a conventional force dry.
-it would be worse, from one angle, objectively - conventional forces would sympathize with insurgents more easily than they might overseas......gotta keep that in mind.
*also...there are alot of guns here.
None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance, in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive), and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel. None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.
You're right that our country has large swathes of land that would be ideal for flummoxing high-tech hardware, and if the only resources deployed against any rebels were military, sure, you could see a decade or two of fighting in the Rockies or Alleghenies ... but all the AR-15s in the world aren't going unfreeze your accounts so that you can buy food for your fighters. Hungry soldiers don't fight well.
The AR-15 might unfreeze somebodies funds when appropriately deployed.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
