• Dexx1s@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        But it would be an easy war of attrition no? How many died/almost died because Texas couldn’t handle a lil iced? How long could those states last without resources from outside? How much of their materials are usable raw?

        Do the “much guns” states actually have a decent bit of knowledgeable people? Being able to shoot a gun is fine and all but a war is far more than that.

        The biggest worry would probably be the ones already in the military who could/would easily sabotage any efforts. And yes, drones are easily beating rifles when it comes to depleting each other’s resources.

        I know fuck-all about guns and war but my armchair is warmed up.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The US won all nearly all their engagements in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The difference was the lack of public support to keep those wars and occupations going.

            • Enkrod@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              This is it.

              People keep insisting that the populace would win a war of populace against state… maybe it would, I don’t know and it’s not the problem.

              The problem is a war of half the populace against the state and the other half of the populace. Fascism is carried into power by popular demand, it’s not like one day they just appear on the levers of power and have to put up with a revolting population. They will have been put there by the population, and it will be the better armed half of the population.