Just another gun thread, don't bother reading.

[Thumpalumpacus]

None of that factors in the technology on the ground here in terms of surveillance

operated by the insurgency.

Compared to the NSA ...

in terms of financial monitoring (wars are expensive),

not very expensive for an insurgency

Food and fuel cost money. Sacrificing fuel sacrifices mobility. Sacrificing food sacrifices fighting value.

and the fact that it would be much easier to penetrate rebel groups and get much better intel.

gathering intel from cells is wonderful, but it's very limited.

Perhaps. It's still a plus, and in a scenario like this, the gov't will avail itself of every weapon to minimize casualties for the reasons you've laid out above.

None of those factors were in play in any of the conflicts you listed.

We used different methods - different tech, but all of those factors have been in play in (likely) every large conflict man has ever had.

But we're not talking about "every large conflict". We're talking about asymmetrical conflict. And in that particular subset of warfare, the examples you've provided have obvious differences, a few of which I've listed, from an insurgency based on American soil.

That you would bring AR15's (you're working for them..arent you...you want the rebels to lose..lol), and think that insurgents fight like soldiers (hungry or tired), have the requirements of soldiers, or the logistical back end is why -you- cant join my militia sir.

lol, I just pulled the scariest gun I could think of off the top of my head.

I know that logistically, insurgents are much lighter. I also know that they often don't fight like soldiers. But how many American insurgents do you think will strap on a bombvest? No, they will be fighting a war of raids, and that means that food and fuel are requirements. And those must either be seized, or bought. Freeze their funds, and you force them to fight for resources.

You'd see further decades in the sub tropical and swampy south. The frozen north, the vast plains where mech fears to tread (but ironically is the most effective). However, urban centers would be the absolute worst.

Sure, urban centers could be the worst -- but then, rebels would have to be there, and that's a pretty risky strategy to pursue, given the inherent lethality of street fighting. Destroying someone's home is not a good way of getting their support, yet selecting their city to fight in would be more likely to bring that problem about. It would be the equivalent of holding a city hostage.

These are the problems that have confronted every invading army (or brutal regime) -ever-. The locals always find the food, its the people with supply trains and expensive requirements that have all the problems....

I hear you. But that is predicated on having the support of locals. And as split as the citizenry is on this issue ... seems to me that in the south and west (excluding California and Perhaps Oregon), that would be a given; but in the northeast and midwest, local support for an insurgency would likely be faint.

Don't get me wrong, I love our military - it's good shit, it just isn't going to fare any better here than it has elsewhere or that, historically, conventional forces have fared in assymetric warfare at any point in time.

I disagree, for the reason that a domestic insurgency would give the government that many more levers with which to do battle off the battlefield than it had in any of the other insurgencies we've fought.