Details are still scant, but…

“I mean, he had a lot of ammunition in that house, and certainly … all of us were strapped, you know, with ammunition, and we were calling for additional ammunition,” Kraus said. “Like I said, we tried to give him every opportunity to come out.”

    …I’ll go way out on a limb and suggest that this could’ve been handled better.

  • @SCB
    link
    0
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No they would not lol. They’d just bomb the house.

    Once the military is involved, ordinance and utter air superiority is also involved.

    “Dudes with guns” have a 0% chance of defeating the US military. People bring up vietnam and Afghanistan as if A) those wars weren’t heavy on RoE and more about military policing than war - which a revolution most assuredly would not be and B) the kill ratio of those conflicts is in US favor by shit like 30+ to 1. That’s in enemy territory, thousands of miles from home, with stretched logistics lines, and a hostile or at best indifferent local populace outside of every major city.

    The US lost fewer than 2,000 soldiers to enemy actions in Afghanistan. That’s fewer people than died in 9/11, spread out over 2 decades. That’s more than 1/3rd fewer people than the US lost in just the battle of Iwo Jima.

    Once you consider that these “armed revolutionaries” will be viewed as terrorists by at minimum 160 million of their neighbors, and they will be denied all critical infrastructure, funding, and support, it is a no-brainer that they will be slaughtered. That’s even assuming these irregulars count as soldiers and wouldn’t just piss and shit themselves once they started getting bombed from beyond visual range. War is really fucking scary and the average angry shut-in cannot handle it.

    The math just doesn’t hold up. This isn’t a real option - it’s a dangerous, radicalizing fantasy that encourages lone wolves and militias to attack soft targets.