Nevada......Is A Pit of SIN!

[Sea Skimmer]

And the Chechnians are no nearer to defeating the Russian government than when they started their revolt —which they never even dared to think of in the bad old days when the KGB was still in place.

That one province has 80,000 troops in it plus another 25,000 in direct support around the boarders. Now what would happen if say three more Chechnya's happened at the same time? The Russians wouldn't have the manpower or ammunition to put them all down is what. The result would be a rebel victory. This is exactly what a US army would be facing. It would also have to deploy massively more forces to defend its support infrastructure, something the Russians don't have to deal with.

[Patrick Degan]

That one province has 80,000 troops in it plus another 25,000 in direct support around the boarders. Now what would happen if say three more Chechnya's happened at the same time? The Russians wouldn't have the manpower or ammunition to put them all down is what. The result would be a rebel victory. This is exactly what a US army would be facing. It would also have to deploy massively more forces to defend its support infrastructure, something the Russians don't have to deal with.

As I said, as long as you ignore certain inconvenient realities, we can just posit whatever bullshit what-if scenarios we like, now can't we?

The brutal reality is that the Russians aren't going to be faced with three more Chechnya-like revolts. And in case it's escaped your historical notice, we've already had one civil war in which eleven entire states rose in rebellion against the Federal government.

They lost.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The majority of the population did not rise up in 1956, the vast majority hid in there basements while a handful destroyed a division worth of Soviet tanks.

With small-arms fire, as per the NRA fantasy?

BTW, you forgot to mention that they lost anyway.

Yes, they lost. But they didn't have many small arms to speak of - Yes, they could booby-trap tanks, but in street fighting, infantry is what carries the day. And in a revolt against an already extant repressive regime, well, the guns aren't there.

Imagine if they'd had considerably more snipers firing from the buildings down into the infantry support around those tanks. Sea Skimmer's example proves that, not only are firearms effective, but human ingenuity can overcome armour.

Also, I would note that the Soviets were invading Hungary. IE, they were from the outside and that army was receiving support from the outside. It would have been rather harder to suppress the Hungarian revolt using the Hungarian army without outside assistance.

[Patrick Degan]

Imagine if they'd had considerably more snipers firing from the buildings down into the infantry support around those tanks. Sea Skimmer's example proves that, not only are firearms effective, but human ingenuity can overcome armour.

And if the tanks shell the buildings into rubble? Human ingenuity can work both ways.

Also, I would note that the Soviets were invading Hungary. IE, they were from the outside and that army was receiving support from the outside. It would have been rather harder to suppress the Hungarian revolt using the Hungarian army without outside assistance.

Immaterial. The Soviets were suppressing a secession attempt and won. The rebels did not have foreign recognition or aid, without which no rebellion can hope to prevail.

[Sea Skimmer]

And if the tanks shell the buildings into rubble? Human ingenuity can work both ways.

They tired that, to many buildings, too few tank rounds and people can clear out far faster then even a wall can be collapsed. They had to fly thousands of bombing missions and bring up an armys worth of artillery. SU army doesnt have those kind of forces to spare for even the top 20 Urban centers in the States

Immaterial. The Soviets were suppressing a secession attempt and won. The rebels did not have foreign recognition or aid, without which no rebellion can hope to prevail.

Actually it is. The Russians where invading another country with minimal oposition from its regular forces. The American Army would be fighting a gurrilia war on its own soil.

[Patrick Degan]

And if the tanks shell the buildings into rubble? Human ingenuity can work both ways.

They tried that, too many buildings, too few tank rounds and people can clear out far faster then even a wall can be collapsed. They had to fly thousands of bombing missions and bring up an armys worth of artillery. US army doesnt have those kind of forces to spare for even the top 20 Urban centers in the States

Fuel-air bombs and chemical weapons. Or you can simply seal off all the routes into the city and starve the population out. Plus, you keep assuming a mass-uprising from a populace grown lazy and too willing to let their TVs do all their thinking for them.

The Russians where invading another country with minimal oposition from its regular forces. The American Army would be fighting a guerrilia war on its own soil.

In history, the U.S. Army has already fought an organised army of rebellion on our own soil and won. It has fought native guerilla resistance fighters on our own soil and won. And guerilla wars on their own are never enough to overthrow a government. See Shining Path in Peru.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And if the tanks shell the buildings into rubble? Human ingenuity can work both ways.

The tanks which are getting blown up? The attrition will be working both ways, and even if only, say, 5% of the population of a city of one million fights, that's still 50,000 people armed with guns and making homemade explosives, and more inventive things like the Hungarian methods of dish detergent and trolley cables. In an urban enviroment that kind of situation would be hell - I suspect the US Army would want a two corps sized force to take and hold a city against that kind of resistance.

It's been reported that President Bush has approved the 250,000-man option for the invasion of Iraq. If he has, it's almost certainly because of the possibility of Ba'athist irregulars and Republican Guardsmen fighting in the streets Baghdad and Tikrit. That's at least a three-corps force, with another British army corps in addition. There's a reason for that; it's unlikely we'll face any sort of determined opposition that a free citizenry, fighting for their freedom, would put up. But you rather want to be safe, don't you?

The U.S. army doesn't have more than ten corps today, that's including the NG. Even assuming a single corps against a single city.. Well, things are going to be stretched thin. And that would leave vast areas in open revolt with not many forces left over to deal with them.

Immaterial. The Soviets were suppressing a secession attempt and won. The rebels did not have foreign recognition or aid, without which no rebellion can hope to prevail.

Your first statement is irrelevant to the discussion. Hungary is a foreign country from the USSR. We're discussing the ability of free citizens with guns to keep a tyranny from gaining power in their country. Therefore, the question would be, has the citizenry of a country ever defeated their own military. Not someone else's. The scenario actually places an unfair burden on the Hungarians, because they had just overthrown a previously existing tyranny, and did not have the level of firearms possession we're talking about, and they were being invaded by a foreign power, not fighting their own military.

[Darth Wong]

The U.S. army doesn't have more than ten corps today, that's including the NG. Even assuming a single corps against a single city.. Well, things are going to be stretched thin. And that would leave vast areas in open revolt with not many forces left over to deal with them.

Assuming that this open revolt actually occurs on the scale that you say it would. Fear is a powerful agent, and while this may seem trite, it bears pointing out that even if you have a gun in your hand, you will still be afraid of a tank.

How many people are going to rise up in this NRA fantasy? You arbitrarily say 5% of the entire population. How do you know it will be even a fraction of this amount? If your life is not in immediate danger, it's hard to roust up the kind of fanaticism required to go toe-to-toe with a technologically superior foe. A lot more people will say they're willing to die for an ideal than will actually do it.

PS. Sea Skimmer, yes, the Russkies had to call in air support. But isn't that part of the point? Militaries have that option. Rifle-wielding civilians don't.

[Vympel]

Human ingenuity can only defeat armor if it is used unintelligently. In the 1994 to 1996 campaign the Russian armor was hampered in the following ways:

1: They were ordered to leave thier explosive-reactive-armor behind. This rendered them far more vulnerable to Chechen RPG-7 attacks.

2: They were deployed in an urban environment without adequate and competent infantry support

3: The general low level of training of regular Russian forces had a negative effect

In the 1999 campaign the situation was far different

1: ERA was fitted to every single T-72B in the theater from the get go. T-62M tanks without ERA were used almost exclusively by the Ministry of Interior for long range direct fire support- they were never used in assualts, let alone an urban environment. ERA dramatically reduces the effectiveness of an RPG- you must aim at a section of the tank that has its ERA block already set off (pretty unlikely- the blocks are quite small) or where there is no ERA at all. Where there is no ERA- you are unlikely to score a kill.

Out of 400 tanks deployed in Chechnya- only 10 were written off as destroyed- as in beyond repair. More were damaged, but they could be repaired and in many cases the crew was entirely uninjured (ammunition cook off is a problem in Soviet tanks- a tank is pretty much a write off if the turret EXPLODES)

2: Artillery was used much more liberally by most reports- to smash opposition before the mechanized forces rolled in and ground everything to dust. On the whole- tough lessons had been learned.

3: Current Chechen tactics show the bankruptcy of standing up to a conventional heavy armored force. All they do is shoot at checkpoints, snipe at helicopters, and set off mines. And engage in terrorism in Moscow. This ain't gonna win the war.

[Darth Wong]

I suppose I should describe the two competing scenarios:

1) Non-NRA scenario: fascist regime steadily erodes individual rights until some kind of emergency gives it an excuse to declare martial law in the name of national security. Most of the people go along with this. A very small number of people engage in violent uprisings, but are violently put down, again for the sake of national security, and slandered as "traitors" by the state-controlled media outlets for good measure. Others learn from this example and go into hiding.

2) NRA scenario: fascist regime seizes control of the country overnight. Millions of patriotic Americans grab their guns and take to the streets in a massive outpouring of national righteousness, and crush the fascists by overwhelming the military and ignoring massive casualties. Thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties do not blunt the ardour of these righteous holy warriors, who cannot be stopped because they fight fearlessly for truth, justice, and the American way.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I suppose I should describe the two competing scenarios:

1) Non-NRA scenario: fascist regime steadily erodes individual rights until some kind of emergency gives it an excuse to declare martial law in the name of national security. Most of the people go along with this. A very small number of people engage in violent uprisings, but are violently put down, again for the sake of national security, and slandered as "traitors" by the state-controlled media outlets for good measure. Others learn from this example and go into hiding.

2) NRA scenario: fascist regime seizes control of the country overnight. Millions of patriotic Americans grab their guns and take to the streets in a massive outpouring of national righteousness, and crush the fascists by overwhelming the military and ignoring massive casualties. Thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties do not blunt the ardour of these righteous holy warriors, who cannot be stopped because they fight fearlessly for truth, justice, and the American way.

Actually, Mike, I don't think either scenario can happen in a country with a full right to keep and bear arms, because that right will act as a deterrant to any fascist or other totalitarian takeover. Banning gun ownership would be a necessary prelude to 1, while 2 would never be attempted because of gun ownership.

[MKSheppard]

Algeria...

And lets not forget that I've been reading for the last few weeks about:

"Russian Helicopter Shot down in Chechenya"

[C.S.Strowbridge]

2) NRA scenario: fascist regime seizes control of the country overnight. Millions of patriotic Americans grab their guns and take to the streets in a massive outpouring of national righteousness, and crush the fascists by overwhelming the military and ignoring massive casualties. Thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties do not blunt the ardour of these righteous holy warriors, who cannot be stopped because they fight fearlessly for truth, justice, and the American way.

I wonder how many of these gun nuts have been in a gun fight? Not a mock paintball war, but a real fight where someone is actively trying to kill you. I've never been, but a friend of a friend nearly got caught in the crossfire of a gun battle.

It's not like you do a rolling dive, pull your gun out and blow away the bad guys. You dive for cover and wish you'd brought a spare pair of underwear. And that's if your lucky, if your unlucky you go into shock and don't do anything. Can you say, 'Stationary target.'

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Actually, Mike, I don't think either scenario can happen in a country with a full right to keep and bear arms, because that right will act as a deterrant to any fascist or other totalitarian takeover. Banning gun ownership would be a necessary prelude to 1, while 2 would never be attempted because of gun ownership.

Yeah, cause lord knows the NRA would never let the government get away with squashing the rights of the people, even if it was in the name of fighting terrorism ... No wait, they did.

[Darth Wong]

Heh heh ... I like the way it doesn't occur to the proponents of the NRA scenario that the government would simply brand unlawful resistance to be "terrorism" and crack down on it, with most of the sheeple cheering them on.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Totalitarian governments typically rule through the use of fear, and the agents of the government that apply this fear are usually small in number. The Gestapo, SS, NKVD, GRU, and KGB were all very small portions of their countries populations, but through the use of fear, intimidation, and misinformation they were able to keep the populace meek and under control.
Knowing this we can see that presenting the arguement as the citizens of a country vs its armed forces is deceptive. In most countries, including the ones we just mentioned, the bulk of the armed forces are composed of regular citizens, who, for the most part are decent people who have as much to fear from these various agencies of fear as the average citizens do. From this we can see that any modern day rebellion or would be rebellion is much more a battle between the average citizenry and the agents of goverment which rule through fear. In every instance of camp style slaughter of people the government labeled as "undesireables" the people were complacent and went to their graves like sheep to a slaughterhouse. This was the case in both the Holocaust and the forced labor camps (aka corrective labor facilities) of the USSR. All this taken together makes this quote from "The Gulag Archipelago" (by Alexander Solzhenitsyn) espically powerful.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand....The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

As we can see now, the justification for gun ownership in this era is not so much to face an army in open combat, but rather it serves to check as to how totalitarian a government can become. People who are armed can be sure that they will always be, to some extent, free. Once people are disarmed and lose hope there is no telling how far government power can go. Or if your one who likes one line summerizations....

It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep may be.
-Sir Francis Bacon

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I couldn't ask for a better example to prove my point then this......

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
Adolph Hitler, 1938

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Heh heh ... I like the way it doesn't occur to the proponents of the NRA scenario that the government would simply brand unlawful resistance to be "terrorism" and crack down on it, with most of the sheeple cheering them on.

Hell, most of the NRA would support the government. They'd probably use it to push the sale of guns. 'We need to protect ourselves from these domestic terrorists.'