Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?

The United States has without a doubt the most heavily armed population in the world, with firearms being a part.


The United States has without a doubt the
most heavily armed population in the world, with firearms being a part of daily life for
many Americans. While in many nations the mere sight of a
gun is an extremely rare occurrence, in the US some studies say there are almost as many
guns as there are people, while others say there are more- what is known though is that
much like American income, the majority of guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority,
with 3% of gun owners owning half of all guns in the United States. With this much firepower available to the
citizens of America, does it really stand a chance against its own military? The US military needs no introduction, it
has the world’s largest budget- more than the next seven competitors who are, in order:
China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan. Of $1.6 trillion dollars spent on military
budgets around the world, the United States accounted for thirty seven percent of the
world total. All that spending goes to support the largest
military presence on earth, with American bases spread out across every continent except
Antarctica. Greatly mistrusted for its all-encompassing
reach, US national strategy is in fact to avoid another major war such as the two world
wars and the countless wars that rocked continental Europe for centuries. US forces are therefore pre-staged in potential
conflict zones where in conjunction with local allies, their presence alone is a deterrence
to violence. The results are hard to argue with, seeing
as there have been no wars between major industrialized powers since the end of World War II. The US may not necessarily field the best
technology in every department- for instance, the Russians have for long fielded more sophisticated
anti-air and electronic warfare weapon systems- but it does bring a unique capability that
no other nation matches: the ability to field advanced technology across the board, and
not just in select areas. This makes the American military a lethal
force against any modern adversary, and has historically forced its major political adversaries
to seek out niche strategies for holding the US at bay. Russia for instance has for decades focused
not on stopping a US offensive outright, but in denying it the air power that would lead
to a quick win. To this effect they have focused on anti-air
weapon systems to knock US planes and cruise missiles out of the sky, and advanced electronic
warfare systems to disrupt the networked abilities of American weapons. While China tries to slowly build a naval
presence capable of standing up to the US, it relies on a huge stockpile of ballistic
missiles to deter the American navy- in fact, China is the only major power in the world
to have an arm of the military dedicated solely to ballistic missiles. Yet while the US military has proven time
and again it dominates the modern battlefield, it has historically had the exact same troubles
that every other military has when it comes to fighting low-intensity counter-insurgency
wars. When denied the use of its overwhelming firepower
and technological advantages, the US military is in the same boat as any other nation’s,
and must rely on low-tech, door-to-door action against insurgent forces who don’t use heavy
equipment and don’t wear uniforms. For all its military might, even the American
military has great difficulties in fighting an insurgency war. Should the American people ever rise up against
their own government, and that government authorize the use of military force against
its citizenry, the American insurgents will find themselves in an initially favorable
position against the American military. For starters, US forces are widely dispersed
around the world, meaning that unlike most nations, the least number of American combat
troops and equipment is present at home as compared to overseas. For the first few weeks of the war, the insurgents
will be able to carry out large scale operations that will become impossible once more and
more military equipment returns home. With the largest air and naval transport fleet
in the world, this initial tactical disadvantage the military will find itself in will quickly
be reversed. American insurgents could think themselves
safe from major retaliation, seeing as no country ever truly wants to destroy its own
infrastructure just to defeat an insurgency- let alone the world’s richest nation who’s
cities, highways, railways, and ports are vital arteries of global trade. Yet one of the US military’s major tactical
advantages against foreign adversaries will prove just as deadly effective against an
insurgency. Smart weapon were first developed to take
out pieces of Soviet hardware from afar with pinpoint accuracy. The ability to strike a specific target from
hundreds of miles away was a major technological offset, and a capability that Cold War Soviet
military planners greatly feared. An inventory of networked American bombs and
weapon systems could decimate entire troop formations and camouflaged artillery positions
with ease, while Soviet planes would have to rely on traditional and very inaccurate
gravity bombs and unguided rockets to strike back with. Smart weapons eventually spread around the
world, but to date no other nation has as large a stockpile, or integration, as the
US. With the ability to strike at pinpoint targets
and avoid collateral damage, American insurgents will quickly find themselves prey even in
the heart of major cities. American surveillance assets are also amongst
the best in the world. Having a nearly 20-year insurgency war under
its belt, the American military has finely tuned itself for counter-insurgent operations,
and is today the leading counter-insurgency force in the world. Not only has it developed a slew of surveillance
technologies to better locate and disrupt insurgent operations hiding amidst a civilian
population, but more important, its troops are highly trained in conducting urban warfare
ops and the traditional fight for ‘hearts and minds’. When the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in
the 80s, it did so as the world’s biggest military juggernaut and crushed all stand-up
opposition. However, within weeks the war shifted from
a conventional one to a counter-insurgency and war of attrition. The Soviets responded much in the Soviet way:
overwhelming firepower delivered very indiscriminately, and soon Soviet forces found themselves unable
to operate outside of heavily fortified positions. Any Soviet foray into the countryside would
have to be conducted with large amounts of manpower and heavy fire support, and often
it simply wasn’t worth it. The Americans on the other hand initially
did much as the Soviets, wiping out major military opposition within a matter of weeks
with overwhelming firepower. However, it was here that they showed a better
aptitude for fighting an asymmetrical war against a non-conventional foe. Wherever American firepower went, it was followed
by major civil relief programs, with a focus on building infrastructure and restoring-
if not improving- the lives of the civilian population. Very quickly a complex system of diplomatic
agreements and alliances arose between US forces and the dozens of disparate groups
who all claimed some piece of Iraq or Afghanistan for themselves. Ultimately the effort would result in a half-won
victory of sorts, which was still light years ahead of the total defeat suffered by the
Soviets. Unfortunately the US’s insistence on fighting
two insurgency wars simultaneously would force it to divide its assets, and ultimately result
in the mixed results we see today. Yet all the expertise, technology, and troop
experience gained from the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would come into play
against the US insurgents- and this time the US military will find itself with major advantages
it lacked in the Middle East. For starters, it has home field advantage,
and its forces are no longer operating within a culture they don’t understand very well. Cultural misunderstandings will be impossible,
and by understanding the American culture, the US military can better win the fight for
hearts and minds, turning many would-be insurgents from their path and garnering the support
of civilians who would have instead supported the insurgents instead. Secondly, it will be fighting to unite a nation
which actually wants to be united and has a national identity, making the process of
reestablishing a stable political system far easier than it was in the Middle East. Iraq had huge sectarian divisions that plagued
the country for decades, and were barely kept in check by an authoritarian strongman. Afghanistan was itself also only held together
by the very violent Taliban, who regularly used military power to enforce its grip over
the people. Without these authoritarian figures forcibly
uniting the nations together, Iraq and Afghanistan quickly fell to pieces that were very difficult
to put back together. Afghanistan would prove especially difficult,
as its people simply lacked the desire for national unity that nations in the West have
had for centuries. Americans however have a very strong sense
of national unity, and lack the sectarian differences and ideological conflicts that
would see the nation split up into a conglomerate of cabals in the case of national government
collapse. Sure, Democrats and Republicans may often
be eat each other’s throats, but ultimately as national tragedy after national tragedy
has shown, the American people stand united. As the old adage goes, you’re allowed to fight
with family and call them names, but if anyone else tries to hurt your family then you better
watch out. This sense of unity will make the job of counter-insurgency
far easier on American forces than it was in the middle east, and make it more difficult
for American insurgents to exploit a mistrust of the US military. Yet while American insurgents are out gunned
by the American military, they can take advantage of asymmetrical tactics to all but nullify
the US military’s overwhelming firepower. By following the same play book as the Iraq
and Afghanistan insurgencies, American insurgents could force US troops into close-quarters
battles where they couldn’t bring fire support such as air strikes or artillery bombardments
against them. American insurgents would also be able to
enjoy the advantage of fighting a near-total urban warfare campaign, given the size and
scope of US cities. As the first part of the 21st century has
proven, urban warfare is the great equalizer between military powers, as it denies most
of the technological advantages of a nation’s military. Fighting instead is door-to-door and house-to-house,
carried out by individual squads of soldiers and little more than the rifles and gadgets
they can carry on their person. With the US military numbering at just over
one million, and with potentially millions of American insurgent forces, victory for
the US military will be all but impossible. A fight between the US military and US citizens
would be a dragged out affair that would likely last as long as the overseas insurgencies. It would be less a war of weapons and more
a war of words, with both sides trying to sway the majority of the population to its
side. It’s likely that in such a war entire cities
would go rogue, with local city governments refusing to outright support the US military
or the insurgents, and simply wishing to be left out of the fighting. They would deny the military the right to
operate in its streets, but also not wish to support an insurgency which will bring
military action against it. Despite the huge glut of guns available to
American citizens, the truth is that there would be no major resupply effort courtesy
of an outside power. In the Middle East, Afghani and Iraqi insurgents
were kept well supplied by Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan- amongst other actors- and trade
routes into the war zones often went through Pakistan who refused to allow US forces to
operate inside its borders and shut them down. In an American insurgency however, there would
be no neighboring power to supply the American insurgents, and the major trade routes into
the US through which arms supplied by a foreign power could enter would all be very easily
monitored and shut down by the US military. Within a year or two of heavy fighting the
American insurgency would find itself very low on ammo and very low on usable equipment. Yet the war would take a huge toll on the
American economy as well, which would in turn directly affect the budget of the US military. With major parts of the economy disrupted
by fighting or sabotage, the US military budget would rapidly shrink, and it would no longer
be able to afford to operate its vast fleets of modern equipment. In the end, a war of attrition would settle
in, and a winner is all but impossible to declare. It would come down to a sheer matter of will,
and which side would be willing to sacrifice the most to come out the ultimate victor. Yet as each side became more desperate, their
actions would lose them the support of the population they would rely on, and thus lose
the war for hearts and minds. Who do you think would actually win a war
between the US military and its citizens? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments, and as always
if you enjoyed this video don’t forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great
content!

100 thoughts on “Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?”

  1. The only real reason we would revolt is if they tried taking away our rights, say they do that, most of the military would leave and probably join the civilians, even the government says 55-70% would leave

  2. “Most heavily armed population in the world… without a doubt…” bruh, like 8 seconds into the video…. Switzerland dude

  3. “Cultural misunderstanding would be impossible”. Bruh. Ok to the extent of going to a foreign country sorta see what you’re getting at, but no. If Blizzard can’t figure out the culture of their own host country, I don’t imagine that the US military could either

  4. Thid video is wrong. It doesnt take into account the 50 -70% of soldiers who would abandon their posts and fight for the people. You take 50 – 70 % out of 1 million you would have around 300,000 – 500,000 active soldiers against around 10 – 20 million "insurgents". You take that into account and its a quick win for the citizenry.

  5. The cartels mafias and gangs of usa will didnt yall saw on the news how powerful one little cartel from sinaloa Mexico can be in the past 2 weeks ???

  6. He talks as if the US Military is on an island, he forgets they are US citizens also and depending on the reasons behind the insurgency will very likely sympathize with the "insurgents"…

  7. It would be very hard to convince some soldiers to stay loyal to a government that opens fire on its own people. I think there's a strong possibility that some military units would mutiny. And in so doing the insurgency would gain military equipment, training and resources from military people who have switched sides. In any case its a road no sensible human being would want to go down.

  8. the most difficult enemy to beat is the one you cant see and don't know about. a military is semi-useless. they might win eventually but at what costs?. how long did the FARC last against the government forces? civilians would not openly attack the military they will go after small targets and individual soldier creating fear. that is how they lost Vietnam and they will lose any long term war. on hostile grounds to defeat an enemy you first need to know who the enemy is.

  9. The us military would win no doubt all they would have to do is nuke people force them into submission or slavery ofc the result of all that is momentarily enslavement until the masses rise up with nothing left to lose they will fight to there dieing breath I'm pretty sure most will conform to government tho

  10. Any enlisted who is operating militarize equipment should bring that equipment to the population becoming AWOL for love of country and family when this happens to deal with the military and more importantly the UNITED NATIONS!

  11. The military is made up of the population, which wouldn't do it, but just theoretically, the military makes up 3% or so since last I heard. Just numbers wise we hold the advantage, and the same rules of urban warfare would probably apply. Most of the time we would also have home field advantage. Its not certain, but definitely tactically in our favor.

  12. I think the liberals will bring in the Chinese to do their fighting for them . Thats realistically that only hope they have is to bring in a foreign power

  13. we never used smart munitions in Afghanistan and id say most of the combat forces would be likely to join the insurgents. those who are more likely to stick with the govt are those who cannot fight effectively. not to mention we have been fighting insurgents for over a decade, probably close to 2 decades now.

  14. The military really isn't going to be a threat to U.S population. It's anti 2A people because these governments that do these mass murders aren't sending Seal Team 6 their sending the 40 year old cashier that spent 3 weeks in "boot camp"

  15. FACT THE ONES THAT WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE TREASONOUS GOVERNMENT ARE MOSTLY VETS. 3% OF THIS COUNTRY TRIES ARE T H E FREEDOM FIGHTERS THE REST OF YOU ARE NOT AND WILL NOT FIGHT.

  16. Only just a few of the soldiers would go against the people. Most of them will fight for the that was our oath. In veterans would be for the people that oath does not have a date when it expires

  17. "Stand United"…!!!.??. yeah right… sure you will.!!.. Not anymore… When this country collapses it will be everyone for themselves…. don't forget the prisons..,!!..other groups coming into this country…and other countries supporting the ensurgency with weapons and tech…. So many of your Americans will die… And die..!!..so die..!!! As a Native person it's great to see this colonizer illegal occupier Government of Sovereign Native lands.. collapse…!!… Manifest destiny has come to an end…. NATIVE INDEPENDENCE…!!!!

  18. 20 million veterans. Most of the military would never fight the Civilian population except Leftist Type Radical Antifa types.Who would be Wiped out within 72 hours.But the Antfa type dweebs woul behave similar to cockroaches. Hiding,zig zagging in retreat.

  19. The job of the military is to defend the state, the job of the police is to protect the people. Don't ask us to do our jobs, because we will. Do a better job at picking leaders.

  20. total bs over half the military will not fight their own people and the citizens of the USA own and run all the infrastructure and factories the longer any insurrection runs the higher the likelihood of the government capitulating this will not be a fight in the cities as it will be a fight in the city for survival because the cities fall the minute the food & energy shuts down

  21. The us military would never turn on its soldiers. We are American citizens ourselves and turning on the people we swore to protect would most likely just result in a coup of the government.

  22. This would never happen. Americans hate eachother but there's nothing we collectively hate more than something that attacks our still developing, but world leading idea of freedom and liberty. If it was the people vs the military, there would be no military to fight, because they're made up of the people.

  23. There are a couple of realities to think of:

    1) The US military is supplied by AMERICANs. US factories, farms, and logistics keep the military running.
    2) You don’t hit the tanks, planes, and drones, or even the soldiers. You hit the fuel truck driver, the mechanic, and the drone pilot.

  24. You have left out so many factors that it makes this video analysis laughable at best. For instance, would a foreign country be emboldened to attack overseas troops if a coup started in the U.S.? It is likely considering the opportunity that it would present to America's enemies.

  25. The citizens will win no matter what anyone thinks on the weeks it will take for the army to defend the citizens could hit every major power grid and leave everyone without power and without power there will be no resources like fuel or news without this communication will be difficult and no one will know that is going on. Now most of the military will defect on a civil war because 60 % to 70 % of the military is right wing and wont stand for an attack on its brothers. And who dosent leave the military could become spys its honestly will come down to the United Nations making the attack and at that point without the US military this will be a hard fight for the UN.

  26. For the Citizenry to rise up against the Federal Government, the Government would either have to completely fail in its primary roles and those at the highest bastions of leadership would have to refuse to be held accountable or the Federal Government would have to blatantly violate the Bill of Rights guarantees of the people.
    For all our military might, the content creator did not address the several states whose National Guard and Air National Guard units would support the people as would inevitably some of the Federal units. Keep in mind that the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the Federal military on our own soil against US citizens. But…

    In the last almost 20 years, a new Enforcement bureaucracy has been created and progressively enlarged and empowered in the form of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). One of the results has been to “weaponize” every bureaucracy that is managed under one of the various cabinet departments. Each department has its own paramilitary grade enforcers. DHS by law can assume leadership and control over every state and local law enforcement agency too. DHS is under the control of the Executive Branch. The creation of DHS effectively neuters the Posse Comitatus Act by substituting DHS for Federal Soldiers and effectively creating a standing domestic military for any given standing President to use as they see fit. DHS should be the real concern.

  27. I respect people’s opinion, but one thing I do want to correct!! The tactic of supplying relief, after a skirmish!! Has nothing to do with special this or giving us any advantage!! I’ve served since 88 and the sole reason for the cleaning up and repairing!! Is so these same bit holes have a bidding war on who’s currupt construction company get that VERY lucrative and overpriced contract👀👀 don’t believe me?? While Bush sent up to Kuwait. It wasDick Cheney company who pulled that one!! I then shortly after accidentally got shot hunting with Bush👀😳🤫🤣😂😂🤣😂

  28. Alot of people on here assuming the military wouldn't fight its own population. A group of people brainwashed to follow orders without question are NOT going to magically stop following orders.

  29. the people would win since we outnumber them by a whole lot. but then again the military does have biological weapons. sooo they would probably use those.

  30. Citizens would win regardless. It may take some time, but there really isn't an unlimited supply of social psychopaths to draft up by the government. So when a smaller number are put to arms by a failed government, even though supplied well initially, their minds aren't full on the task of killing their own people, and would break down quickly. That, and many more reasons as well. All oppressive governments has failed. And the US citizens just happen to like our country to be free.

  31. since the US military is mostly made up of us common folk I'd say this is a question for the one percent……… looking at u rich faggets in cali

  32. So much of war is about destroying the enemy's will to fight. But there are so many factors that need to be considered that were barely touched on in this short video. I'd say your narrative and your adherence to said narrative is paramount. If it fits within most people's view of a fair system than you will garner support above and beyond what you initially start with.

    The national unity of the US is such that an insurgency would only gain traction if the federal government goes against the principle on which it stands, (narrative). If that were to happen then the battle is half won as countries and even parts of our own military and police would stand against what they see as tyranny and the insurgents or patriots would gain a marked advantage. Propaganda is also very important and if the opposition can couch you as evil-doers then the opposite can happen.

    One just hopes that enough of 'the people' are vested enough in their government to prevent it from straying from the path of a righteous and just society.

  33. This video is interesting but very generic and uninformed. The authors lack some very important information and believe somehow that American military bases would be safe from being over run and their equipment being taken. We can't even take Afghanistan. It doesn't take into account that many of the military members would be on the side of the insurgency. Whole divisions could defect just like in Roman times. So, there wouldn't really be a US Military. There would only be factions of it if a Civil War broke out. We're not talking about an insurgency. We could be talking about numbers of states. We could be talking about entire National Guards and Army reserve units, Air Force reserve units. The video authors falsely believe that weapons and bullets wouldn't come in through Mexico. We can't stop illegals and drugs, why would we be able to stop guns and bullets. It also falsely believes that some other country wouldn't intervene on one side or the other. If Trump were to be the victim of a coup and survived, some countries would no longer recognize the US government as legitimate. It's very unlikely that the American military would be in tact if a fight came. It would be splintered and unable to access many of it's facilities. They could be facing as many as 30 million armed and ready Americans who would be occupying vast areas of the US. Also, transportation and logistics would grind to a halt across the country. Did you see what one small band of cartel members did in just one city in Mexico? This would be horrendously worse. Grids shut down and destroyed. Trucks not delivering goods. Who knows what would happen to the currency. It would be like Venezuela but worse. Let's hope it doesn't happen. But, if it did, it wouldn't go down like this video. Naive.

  34. Russia said that they would supply a American insurgency so they would get resupplied weapons if it just so happened that some random masked dudes showed up with piles of Aks

  35. I feel it's pretty obvious the country would be divided like the last civil war. North vs South or East vs West. The most industrious would win.

  36. The sort and long is the Military will lose. 55,000 electric substations . the grid can be taken down by killing 9 substation.

  37. The OP is 100% incorrect. American Veterans know how to easily handle the threat of the Military. Without power, supplies and runways it’s over pretty quick not to mention roughly 50+% of military and police would abandon their positions once anti-constitutional orders are placed. Especially using the military against citizens.

  38. You overlook a key issue. Once supply chains break down 2 to 4 days, widespread looting and rioting will turn all major cities into riot zones without rule of law. Cri final gangs will control some areas, but food water and electricity will soon 3 to 7 days be gone. Warehouses, including military supplies will be looted. The military could enter major cites only as an all out assault. Supplies of food from rural farms to cities would take months to years to reestablish. It would be the end of life as we know it. Foreign intervention is likely due to reserves of oil and mineral wealth, a!though the cities would not be worth taking as the are destroyed.

  39. Your forgetting a hugely important detail. The overwhelming number of soldiers who would defect to the patriot side rather than shooting there neighborhoods and communities.

  40. Im pretty sure that Israel would help supply the citizens as that entire state and its people know what its like to be against tyrants throughout all of Israel's 3000 year existence.

  41. You seem to forget some basic facts. There is a law against the military operating against US citizens. There are a total of about 2 mil military personnel. There are over 40 mil gun owners. Do the math. Plus you assume that the military would defend the government. Large assumption

  42. So the second amendment was made incase the government became a tyranny, so I wonder what would happen in that scenario. I think many military personel might leave the military to fight with the civilians for the military to be effective

  43. The US civilians may be the most armed, but we don't have access to the guns that the military has. That's a HUGE factor that will definitely end any insurgency here. Not only is that an issue, but the military has other advantages such as possible outside funding from other countries. An insurgency, no matter the scale, would end before a year passed. From training, to fire power, to discipline even. The military would hands down spank the citizens. But such a scenario wouldn't be possible. If the citizens of the great US rebelled against the government, they wouldn't even be able to use the full force of the secret service. So in that case, this hypothetical would only happen if we degraded to a 3rd world country.

  44. you forget the fact that people can make their own bullets and reload the shells they have shot themselves or collected

  45. You have a King? You have an army? You have the greatest navy in the history of the world? We have the right to keep and bear arms!

  46. Remember Waco ?
    The lies the "government" told, to have us support their burning and killing of men, woman and children.
    Do you really know what went on there?

  47. In a toe to toe fight the answer is a no brainer, but in reality that's not what would happen. One of the few scenarios where something like this would happen is most likely a civil war type scenario and in that case, it wouldn't be civilians vs Military. It would be Military vs other Military with civilians thrown in the mix.

  48. If the armed forces stood by the government I reckon the armed forces would win, but you have to think of the armed forces being loyal to the people in which case I think the people would win,

  49. This presupposes that many military members would support such a conflict am pretty sure units would support the citizens and most likely join them in the fight. Resupply is always a pain but since we are using the same types of equipment the need to scavenge from your foe would be a big help. Fighting would be difficult but the folks living in the area have the home field advantage not the military since they will be deployed out to the area they are needed the most not necessarily an area they know well. I think it will be much harder then anyone would expect.

  50. As an Active duty member I stand by the Constitution and We The People. I think it will be more likely that there would be a federal agency coming to confiscate our Guns. I would think most of the military to stand by the 2nd Amendment and defend our freedoms. The military is still subject to the same laws as anyone else and we don't want to lose our freedoms either. Some things to point out, the military has a ton of fire power state side. Most of power is not over seas this is not true. The biggest advantage insurgents have is that if you are not carrying a weapon you can't be targeted and Rules Of Engagement (ROE) will favor citizens. Which might go away since it is American people after all. Small arms, IED's, and IDF (In direct fire) will be the best was to fight against the military. Hit and run tactics would be essential. Key targets should C2 (Command and Control), supply chains, and POL (fuel/gas). This will limit capabilities. If out numbered use key terrain and cities/suburbs to limit use of militarys use of armor vehicles. The military depends on night capabilities the only to make this a fair fight would be to invest in night vision and thermal devices.

  51. @ The UN arm troops are already position within the US and would be supply with more ammo and rifles, more extra arm troops on their way, to occupy the US, until the US military regains control. It would be a step by step occupation. No large city is safe. The UN would win by a continue supply of new arm soldiers or loose by leaving the US. Civil war is the end of the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *