Question. Is guerilla warfare outdated the way anti gun types say it is?
Even in Vietnam the NVA backed the Vietnamese guerillas and the USA was winning by every conceivable measure. The only reason Vietnam ended as a stalemate was because President Nixon was impeached and the democrat dominated government voted to pull out before the NVA could surrender during the Paris peace talks.
Nowadays there are even greater challenges to modern guerilla groups.
>Modern 1st world militaries have GPS they can spy on you with
>Modern 1st world militaries have drones you can't even see nor hear, and they can destroy a whole city block with one payload if they wanted
>camouflage won't fool an attack helicopter that can spot you with FLIR from several miles away
>most modern 1st world civilians have very little will to stand up to their government by writing petitions let alone have the testicular fortitude to take up arms
It seems as though guerilla warfare is outdated and almost completely out of the question, as in the 2A literally can not save an armed population against a government like the US Gov't anymore.
Any thoughts?
Guerilla Warfare will always be a viable until we figure out a way to glass entire planets 40k style.
>>29753498
this
>>29753479
>Question. Is guerilla warfare outdated the way anti gun types say it is?
It's more effective than ever because modern nations are unwilling to use effective tactics against it.
The British had tremendous success against guerrilla ans unconventional armies for centuries.
>The only reason Vietnam ended as a stalemate was because President Nixon was impeached and the democrat dominated government voted to pull out before the NVA could surrender during the Paris peace talks.
You're half right.
The North signed the peace agreement before Nixon was impeached.
The Democrats cut all aid to the South, and were obviously opposed to lifting a finger to helo them, which allowed the communist backed North to attack again and claim victory after an initial defeat.
>>Modern 1st world militaries have GPS they can spy on you with
I think you mean drones and such, not gps.
>>Modern 1st world militaries have drones you can't even see nor hear, and they can destroy a whole city block with one payload if they wanted
Unfortunately nobody is willing to do that, under the misguided belief that inflicting civilian casualties has magically become evil and immoral in the last 50 years.
>>camouflage won't fool an attack helicopter that can spot you with FLIR from several miles away
True.
>>most modern 1st world civilians have very little will to stand up to their government by writing petitions let alone have the testicular fortitude to take up arms
Only a very small percentage of them would need to actually fight in order to seriously compromise a government's control of the people.
>>29753498
I'm not gong against that thought in particular but what makes you say that?
>>29753479
guerrilla tactics will always be viable because they cant have armed guards and surveillance on every square foot of a nation.
>>29753538
And even when they do, thats more guns in the street for dissidents to take.
>>29753518
The only point when 1st world civilians take up arms aganist their government is when they themselves are "directly" negatively affected by government actions.
For example;
>government passes a bill where they start pointless construction on a dildo art piece that sprays passerbys with actual rancid elephant cum, the structure will be incorperated in a nameless tax that's taken out of a person's income tax.
Nothing, unless the general public gets spoonfed investigative journalistic article about it, many will not even really care because it's so far removed from them (even if it really isn't).
>government tasks armed agents to come to your front door to collect mandatory tax to build said dildo structure, if you refuse, you are arrested.
NOW that person might act, same fucking penalties and same fucking goal in the end, but in this case, the public is "directly" affected and they'll get angry.
>>29753620
That's nice.
But irrelevant to anything I said.
Contributing in a way
>>29753479
It's highly contextual.
The counter to all the technology of modern armies? It's expensive, if all you're trying to do is stage a revolution in some literally-where tier country nobody's going to waste the money to seriously stop you, so you've only got to hold out against a second rate half-hearted response.
>>29753518
>under the misguided belief that inflicting civilian casualties has magically become evil and immoral in the last 50 years
they've always been immoral, now they're just counter-intuitive as well.
>hey, you know what'll really show everyone the guerilla is wrong about the immorality US imperialism? killing his entire town because he was trying to fight US imperialism!
>>29753538
>they cant have armed guards and surveillance on every square foot of a nation.
The way computer technology is going...
>>29753959
>the immorality US imperialism
immorality OF US imperialism, even.
>>29753935
This image has always annoyed me.
It has a good point on the limited utility of a fighter jet when it comes to enforcing a police state, but it loops right around into underselling fighter tier hardware.
A fighter can bomb a large assembly of people, a fighter can blow your house up at 3 in the morning.
Though US based "armed insurrection" scenarios are laughably fanciful, to get the USA to that state you'd have far bigger problems than the armed insurrection. (just WHY is the USA having this food crisis in the first place?)
There's a huge difference between a foreign war and a domestic insurgency. If it's happening in your own country, as soon as the government starts using Apaches or puts tanks on the streets their public support would plummet.
>>29753992
>food crisis
Prolly cause all the city Fags buy houses that used to be on farmland, bitch and moan about not being able to talk to the corner store (there is none) move out and let the house sit forever.
Also state gov'ts that are taxing the fuck out of farmers.
>>29754020
>Also state gov'ts that are taxing the fuck out of farmers.
Isn't the USA one of those countries that has to subsidize the fuck out of farmers anyway? (essentially just to maintain domestic food production capability, even though a free market approach would see it outsourced.)
>>29753479
>It seems as though guerilla warfare is outdated and almost completely out of the question
Yeah clearly its obsolete, that's why we mopped the floor with the Taliban and ISIS so quickly.
>>29754054
Yamamoto never even said that, dude. Secondly, we were responsible for creating isis. In fact the US government funded them. It's to their benefit to make isis perish as slowly as possible because their charades are going to be the one to make the middle east snap and become entirely dependent on the US pil trade for their prosperity.
>>29753479
>blah blah
>can spot you
>GPS can spot you
>FLIR can spot you
>invisible drones can spot you
So fucking what? If I walk about dressed like a civilian they won't know any different.
Pro-tip: if they don't want to be found, 'terrorists' or guerrillas don't walk about with big signs saying 'I am a Guerilla/Terrorist'.
>>29754031
Yup. A lot of first world coutnries do that.
IIRC Japan's agriculture is basically just kept going as some sort of cultural/historical thing, its not like they've modernised at all.
>>29754031
>>29754136
>has to subsidize farmers
Farmers get subsidies in the US because they're ridiculously productive due to a staggering amount of mechanization. American farmers aren't getting subsidies because they are underdeveloped at all.
>>29754163
>aren't getting subsidies because they are underdeveloped at all.
I'm not saying they're underdeveloped, I'm saying they're unnecessary*
*from a purely market view, i.e. "you could do that cheaper in india" like with manufacturing, obviously for strategic reasons you keep people growing food at home, hence the subsidy. [because the alternatives would fuck up food prices.]
>>29754031
Yes because farmers don't make shit off crops anyhow, tobacco is one of the more profitable crops but ita going down too
>>29754216
No thanks, I prefer to have minimal traces of fecal matter in my food, not the reverse.
>>29753538
Jfc. I did work in telecomms and now work in operations for a major provider of IoT services for the smart grid.
Whoever wrote that up is fucking retarded.
Not saying you can't cause millions of dollars in damages monkey wrenching infrastructure but every single walmart has secondary fiber lines running into them post 2012 to avoid outages.
Most commercial real estate does.
Even if it were to be damaged all large providers have crash teams to just run new lines.
Past that the idea of stop gap interference is a joke.
I'm mad at how bad that is.
>>29753479
In 3rd world countries were the local population is a bunch of scared pussies. In 1st world countries, not so much.
When uncle Sam tells the locals to get out or be shot, the locals comply. They also comply to mass searches ala tsa
>>29754439
>Even if it were to be damaged all large providers have crash teams to just run new lines.
are they armed? do they transport in armor?
>>29754468
The army transporting them is.
Assimilation is one he'll of a drug. You can only get so many before they wise up
>>29753479
>being anti gun type
>being right on anything /k/ related
You can choose only one
>>29753479
well americucks have pretty much gotten their shit kicked in in every war they've participated in after WW2 and all of those were against guerillas
>>29753479
>Is guerilla warfare outdated the way anti gun types say it is?
No. It never will be.
>>29753498
>until we figure out a way to glass entire planets 40k style.
Not even then.
Guerilla warfare is a concept of non direct combat. This concept can never become outdated unless war itself should change drastically (more than it ever has so far, for example, so as to completely change its nature - which it never has). Instead of imagining guerrilla warfare as some Middle Eastern insurgents, the Viet Cong, or the Sandinistas, you need to realize that they're merely its modern representation. Guerrilla warfare in itself is a universal concept that is applicable to any time and technology. Essentially guerrilla warfare is an extention of the usual decisionmaking in wars, with the difference being that one side is so weak it has to limit all its options to non-direct combat. But in essence it is no different from any other war and the line between guerrilla warfare and traditional warfare isn't actually clear.
The mistake on your part is that your understanding of guerrilla warfare is limited to only its one specific representation and you assume that if that one type becomes unviable, so must the whole concept. And that's wrong, because as I explained the nature of war will still be the same, and so will the decisionmaking processes, and situations where one side is remarkably weaker.
tl;dr: no, because as war changes, so does guerrilla warfare.
>>29753479
The NVA did agree to peace and a ceasefire, and recognized the south as legitimate.
>>29754476
If the army had to give protection to every little contractor, or repair man in the event of a total civil war.. I don't imagine they could keep up the funding for that for long, or the logistics.
Besides, It'd be an easy way to set up an attack. Cut a wire, plant an IED, and blow it when they arrive to fix it
>>29754621
>insurgency killing random repairman trying to restore basic services
An insurgnecy cant operate without support. Thats how you lose it.
>>29754031
Only because farmers don't make shit with the giant modernized farming techniques, and other shit.
Also, the government has nothing to loose with subsidizing them because of just how unbelievably productive our agriculture here in the US is.
We have far better agriculture than anywhere else on earth. I'm just hoping they can find a way to make it more sustainable in the long run (that doesn't involve a metric fuckton of fertilizer)
>>29753479
No, but both sides forget how decisive the military is in a successful insurrection. It's kind of hard for drones to shoot at you if you control them.
>>29754621
I didn't realize we were talking total civil war.
In that case all civilians would already be evacuated and they would carpet bomb the fuck out of those rebel scum. No need to restore facilities to rebel territory. My mistake
>>29754627
In the event of a total civil war, I'm sure the 3rd party would know what they're getting into. Not trying to be edgy, but whoever helps your enemy is fair game.
At the very least, I don't think it'd have a huge impact. The rebels could twist it to say the government forces are using them as shields.
>>29754641
Eh, I don't think they would do that. I'm not expert and I'm just shooting the shit, but surely they'd want to preserve the facilities and the money they could bring.
Especially in larger cities. I could maybe see that happening in rural areas.
>>29754444
>In 3rd world countries were the local population is a bunch of scared pussies. In 1st world countries, not so much.
Lelno. Other way around. Third world countries are far laible to erupt in infighting than 1st worlder cunts.
>>29754641
>In that case all civilians would already be evacuated
And the rebels stay in place because...?
You realize they would abuse the shit out of the fact that the government can't just go around arresting/killing people they don't know for sure are rebels.
If they did that they'd risk losing support. And we all know how that ends from history...
>>29753479
Guerilla Wars are actually pretty modern. Far from outdated.
Conversely, idealistic /k/indergartners believe Guerilla Warfare actually wins wars.
>>29754691
Addendum: also not possible in first world countries anymore.
You drama queens make a huge deal about a few of you dying.
>>29754656
But it's rebel territory. There is no benefit to maintaining the enemies facilities. That whole " we can rebuild" attitude even comes into play and now that I think about it chances are it'll be the good guys cutting their utilities.
Any rebel dumb enough to cut services to an enemy territory would only bolster resentment against them since" granny can't power her can opener" type propaganda will be mouth pieced the hell out of and management of proper roadways and major utilities shouldn't be an issue in a 1st world country. Not saying it would be perfect but the cong weren't using main streets and roads. They were deep in jungle paths out in the middle of who cares where. Uncle Sam has little issue justifying why we napalmed a rebel encampment and selling it to the people. The backlash is court Marshalls and fines compared to dead rebel scum
>>29754691
Guerilla warfare is the path to conventional warfare.
But it's one hell of a path
>>29754671
That's what meant anon. Sorry for my poor wording.
>>29754700
I think this guy brought up another good point. The rebels won't stay.
>>29754683
In the first world, even in a massive civil war, It'd be a huge PR disaster to force move everyone and carpet bomb the area.
>>29754646
Thinking you know, and going without power for 2 months is two different things. Then, the "civilians" get to watch you kill the poor fuck trying to do the right thing.
I personally would be taking shots at the insurgents at that point. Juice is not worth the squeeze.
>>29754683
You realize to get into government territory en masse that you would have to go through proper channels. Same way you can't get on a plane without contractors touching your kids no no place. Rebels get weeded out easy this way and all their weapons depots in government territory will be fleshed out.
If you're in a rebel camp then you're a rebel. Only the news spot checks the army by actually going places. You don't have civilians running to Syria to confirm who is who. We just trust the news
>>29754709
The rebels can't exactly cross a checkpoint with guns a blazing. Safe zones are safe for a reason. 12 rebels sneaking across a boarder count as little as threat against the nation as a whole. I'm not saying both sides won't be behind enemy lines but entire guerilla groups functioning properly to take down an entire goverment? The Vietnamese had to travel in massive groups to acquire cities. Setting up and keeping fortifications was our thing in nam. Someone would have to be supplying the enemy with heavy artillery for them to cause a dent
>>29754706
No problem.
>>29754709
I don't think the PR would be that bad
> we can not Guarantee your safety if you're located in zone A. Zone A is a known rebel stronghold. If you are not a rebel combatant then move to the listed zones for your own security. Screening will be conducted upon your arrival
>>29754691
Would it be accurate to describe large parts of the Scottish Wars of Independence as Guerilla warfare, or would those fall closer to conventional warfare with asymetrical forces?
>>29753620
That being said, if it wasn't in my city I would gladly pay a tax to soak random pedestrians in elephant cum.
>>29754726
>>29754709
Wait are you guys honestly picturing this scenario as a literal all out civil war? That's bullshit. Won't happen. Any movement that had the potential of sparking a civil war would be more than able to negotiate its terms via political means. The only conflict of interest similar to that would seem to be the sentiment versus the ever increasing statism/socialism. To fight that you do not need to control territories or beat armies. Like nigger seriously? Do you realize how small a separatist militia force would be? Those that would actually take up arms? You won't start fucking occupying shit with it, that would be a suicide, both politically and physically. The most you can do is propaganda warfare and sabotages.
Revolutions without outside assistance only happen when the entire populace is turned against the government. A fringe ideology can hijack a revolution but it can never start one. I cannot imagine what scenario would bring the entire populace of America to take up arms.
I do not think any separatist movement would survive in America since the government has too large support (the occasional Occupy Wallstreet or "wow politicians are FAGS" doesn't amount to shit).
>>29754910
My first reply started on a guerilla scale but anon wanted to up the ante
>>29754077
And the Taliban?
>>29754418
Exactly! We have enough problems with the food we get from Mexico. Look at the issue with cilantro last year, as an example.
>>29754910
>I do not think any separatist movement would survive in America since the government has too large support (the occasional Occupy Wallstreet or "wow politicians are FAGS" doesn't amount to shit).
If a serious movement could capitalize on sentiment (Hawaii is the only state that really comes to mind, as an outsider, that MIGHT be able to 'feel' like it's not particularly American.) then it might be possible to build up support for secession.
But then you're annoying the most powerful country in the world, which doesn't bode well for an independence movement. You think Canada were bastards to Quebec or the UK were underhanded with the Scots...
>>29754726
>>29754749
>>29754726
Aren't you assuming the rebels will be in camps, or otherwise separate from the communities, and not blending with the populace in general?
I figure it would be more like the Paris and Belgium attacks: an act of aggression followed by a withdrawal into sympathizer communities.
>>29754982
That's what I was getting at.
>>29754917
I honestly thought we were talking about full civil war guerilla warfare.
>>29755032
Ah, my mistake then. I read it as there being rebels in camps trying to assimilate into populated areas.
>>29755045
As I said. I'm not an expert. I'm just shooting the shit and tossing ideas around.
I don't think anyone knows how a first world rebellion and guerilla war would go
>>29755057
I feel like enemies of the US would try to capitalize on the situation and back the insurgency in some way, most likely indirectly but as for who I couldn't say.
>>29755102
IIRC Russia said they'd support a US rebellion.
I'd imagine China would too. Maybe Iran.
..Maybe
>>29755123
fuck id start a civil war for all the free slavshit
To answer this question you honestly have to ask yourself this. "Would you expect a roadside bomb on a highway?", "Would you want to go against people who are banded together more on a cause than you are?" It's an easy question to answer. Guerilla warfare is a beautiful war strategy if it's executed correctly. When morale drops a war stops.
It depends on your objectives. If all you care about is killing everyone then modern weapons have rendered any sort of guerilla resistance pointless (assuming the people you're killing are sufficiently far from your base of operations and supply lines). However, any campaign that requires the occupied populace to largely remain alive and on your side is very susceptible to guerilla warfare and will continue to be effective until we develop the ability to read minds.
>>29753479
You don't fight in jungles and woods and caves anymore, for exactly the reasons you're talking about. You fight in cities and town. You attack and kill politicians when they try to leave their house or survey the damage. You kill police and soldiers when their on patrol. You make the authorities scared to go into large sections of the cities, and hide in their green zones, then you start shooting into those as well. They won't be destroying city blocks, those contains people and infrastructure that they want to be in control of. FLIR can spot a body even with camo but not if your camo is other bodies or buildings. You don't run through fields trying to shoot at soldiers, you set up ambushes in the cities, the only way for them to fight back is with soldiers who are notoriously vulnerable to bullets. Guerilla warefare is anything but outdated, but people are trying to convince you it can only be done in a way that wouldn't work here. Have some imagination.
>>29754816
>We are going to bomb your homes and there is nothing is stopping us.
>Its ok, it is for the greater good.
>>29754444
>>29754671
>>29754910
>>29754950
Insurgency only happens when quality of life is so awful that getting shot by your own country's military doesn't sound so bad by comparison.
As long as the power is still on, water still comes out of the tap, and a calorie-rich meal is 5 bucks at the local fastfood joint, rebellion will never, ever occur.
>>29755610
Ok Mugabe
>>29755735
>make the authorities too scared to go into certain parts of the city.
The drug war has already been successful in this
>>29753538
If I weren't on my phone right now, I would post a picture of a laughing bobby.
>>29756119
Guy-who-mentioned-Hawaii, I was thinking more a peaceful secessionist movement. (which may or may not develop into an insurgency if their demands were rejected, but i doubt it.)
>>29756119
>
Insurgency only happens when quality of life is so awful that getting shot by your own country's military doesn't sound so bad by comparison.
There's more to it. The overall morale of populace and its faith in its rulers does not rely purely on essential things like power, food and shelter.
>>29753479
Gureilla warfare is not about winning conflicts. It's a slow grind to wear down the enemy to the point that their way of life is so changed from getting straffed that they begin to reevaluate how much they really want to be here. You're not winning a material war, you're winning a morale war.
>>29753479
>most modern 1st world civilians have very little will to stand up to their government by writing petitions let alone have the testicular fortitude to take up arms
And why would you "stand up against the government", realistically speaking? Because of "muh guns" again?
Any idea about insurrection is ludicrous, "the rebels" will be ostracized and shunned by the population, by common people. We don't need any of this crazy vigilante militia shit going on. There are no real reason to revolt and without popular support any insurrection will die off very soon. Case in point - these lunatics in Oregon. They are hated by the whole nation, no one supports them and people want to see them dead as domestic terrorists.
>>29758855
>Gureilla warfare is not about winning conflicts
Anon?
>You're not winning a material war, you're winning a morale war.
Anon please.
Stop spouting memes.
Every war is both material and moral.
Refer to >>29754563
>Essentially guerrilla warfare is an extention of the usual decisionmaking in wars, with the difference being that one side is so weak it has to limit all its options to non-direct combat. But in essence it is no different from any other war and the line between guerrilla warfare and traditional warfare isn't actually clear.
If your going to gorilla you have to have a serious ground to air threat presents. Otherwise your
F
U
C
K
FUCKED
>>29754077
Crack isn't good for you.
1. Don't shoot first.
2. Gonna be mighty interesting when autonomous security drones + robots hit the market.
>>29754627
Its what happened in Iraq. They won.
The civilians turn against the government for not being able to provide security against the guerrilla movement. This in effect creates a second guerrilla movement that has to be dealt with as well.
The first guerrilla movement only needs a non-permissive environment to the government forces in order to function.
>>29753520
Armies have a hard time shooting people that look exactly like the ones you can't shoot, even then. Mostly politics really
