On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
Reconstruction was mostly social, not infrastructure. It was reconstructing social order in place of what was removed (plantation farming a slave labor), not buildings/roads/railways really.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
We don’t carpet bomb anymore. We hit critical targets. They would destroy the power grid, oil depots, ammo supplies, etc. They wouldn’t do “wholesale destruction”. That hasn’t been a thing for a while now in warframe, except for in Gaza and Ukraine.
You’re probably right, and I used overly broad language. I’m sure there would be targeted strikes. But any strike against infrastructure would be what I would consider a Big Deal™. Everything is so interconnected now that taking out the power grid, for example, would wreak havoc on all the innocent civilians in the area. Just look at how shit hit the fan when Texas lost power in the winter.
I just think it would be a much more complicated situation than either argument of “we have all the guns, libruls” or “we have Predator drones, conservatard”. I’m used to conservatives making stupid arguments. It bothers me more when I see my side do it.
But hey, maybe I’m the idiot and it would all work out with targeted strikes. That’s why I’m just some guy on the internet and not a general in the Army or whatever.
The Taliban would like a word.
On their own turf the USA has all the maps of everything including of what’s underground, they already have records of who are the potential insurrectionists, where they live, what they drive, who their families are and they also have the support of a huge part of the population.
Oh and good luck to the guys who own machine guns and hunting rifles when facing drones flying high enough that you can’t see them with your naked eye.
It would have nothing to do with Afghanistan.
The guys half way across the world from the US army, where the only thing at stake was a country they’d bombed to shit previously?
Which is exactly why the US isn’t going to carpet bomb their own territory. One, ruling over a rubble-laden wasteland isn’t very appealing. Destroying your own infrastructure isn’t good for GDP. Two, soldiers are going to have a lot harder time bombing their own homeland, regardless of how well trained they are.
That’s like saying the US wouldn’t fight the confederacy because it would damage their land…
deleted by creator
Reconstruction was mostly social, not infrastructure. It was reconstructing social order in place of what was removed (plantation farming a slave labor), not buildings/roads/railways really.
Well that became the narrative when it became clear that we weren’t going to rebuild all the buildings we burned down.
So then the citizenry and army would be fighting on equal footing then and the “we have all the guns here in Texas” argument goes back to making sense. Either the US uses their overwhelming military power or not, you can’t choose both.
No?
Why would you assume it works that way.
I’m saying that if you rely on having F-16 fighter jets and drones dropping bombs, you’re arguing for wholesale destruction. If you don’t rely on fighter jets and bombing raids, that means you’re fighting a ground war against insurgents that are more or less equally armed, assuming they have weapons like AR-15s.
My point is that cruise missiles don’t solve every problem; namely armed local insurgencies. What kind of third use-of-force scenario are you imagining?
We don’t carpet bomb anymore. We hit critical targets. They would destroy the power grid, oil depots, ammo supplies, etc. They wouldn’t do “wholesale destruction”. That hasn’t been a thing for a while now in warframe, except for in Gaza and Ukraine.
You’re probably right, and I used overly broad language. I’m sure there would be targeted strikes. But any strike against infrastructure would be what I would consider a Big Deal™. Everything is so interconnected now that taking out the power grid, for example, would wreak havoc on all the innocent civilians in the area. Just look at how shit hit the fan when Texas lost power in the winter.
I just think it would be a much more complicated situation than either argument of “we have all the guns, libruls” or “we have Predator drones, conservatard”. I’m used to conservatives making stupid arguments. It bothers me more when I see my side do it.
But hey, maybe I’m the idiot and it would all work out with targeted strikes. That’s why I’m just some guy on the internet and not a general in the Army or whatever.
The Taliban had the advantage of logistics. Which we all know is important in war according to Sun Tzu.
It will be a whole lot different when they can fight on their own home turf, which they have been fortifying since whenever they arrived.