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.
You’re not an idiot, but you’re sure limiting the scope of your concerns. Many would die on both sides. But “Many” has a lot of room for nuance inside it.
Let’s take out the big arms and leave it at small arms and infantry assistance technology. The actual, newer than the mothballs police departments get gifted.
Do you actually figure that the remainder of the military which doesn’t turn traitor is gonna be outnumbered by the seceding traitors in this civil war scenario?
Did you also account for the metric fuckton of able bodied people who would enlist during an open war to stomp out Fascism at home in the open like that? The largest regressive ideology spewing for the entire history of the Union state?
The far right isn’t even remotely sized large enough to outsize the non-crazies in the military and those who would run to go join for the resources to defend their country.
It would absolutely lead to much blood shed on both sides. But the losses on New Texas? would at minimum be a whole ass order of magnitude higher. At minimum.
I really would rather not have to pick up arms, and I hope most would too.
But rest assured, the US military would shock and awe the fuck out of Texas to dissuade any in the other 49 from fucking around and finding out, if legit Civil War broke out at Texas’ provocation.
Do you actually figure that the remainder of the military which doesn’t turn traitor is gonna be outnumbered by the seceding traitors in this civil war scenario?
Not at all.
Did you also account for the metric fuckton of able bodied people who would enlist during an open war to stomp out Fascism at home in the open like that?
I’m sure there would a lot more than fascists willing to actually fight.
It would absolutely lead to much blood shed on both sides.
That was my actual point. Not that New Texas has any chance of actually winning.
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.
You’re not an idiot, but you’re sure limiting the scope of your concerns. Many would die on both sides. But “Many” has a lot of room for nuance inside it.
Let’s take out the big arms and leave it at small arms and infantry assistance technology. The actual, newer than the mothballs police departments get gifted.
Do you actually figure that the remainder of the military which doesn’t turn traitor is gonna be outnumbered by the seceding traitors in this civil war scenario?
Did you also account for the metric fuckton of able bodied people who would enlist during an open war to stomp out Fascism at home in the open like that? The largest regressive ideology spewing for the entire history of the Union state?
The far right isn’t even remotely sized large enough to outsize the non-crazies in the military and those who would run to go join for the resources to defend their country.
It would absolutely lead to much blood shed on both sides. But the losses on New Texas? would at minimum be a whole ass order of magnitude higher. At minimum.
I really would rather not have to pick up arms, and I hope most would too.
But rest assured, the US military would shock and awe the fuck out of Texas to dissuade any in the other 49 from fucking around and finding out, if legit Civil War broke out at Texas’ provocation.
Not at all.
I’m sure there would a lot more than fascists willing to actually fight.
That was my actual point. Not that New Texas has any chance of actually winning.