"Guns cannot be used to defeat government", What about Afghanistan then?

The logistics problems would be for the military. Imagine an airbase that was isolated by folks hiding in the hills and surrounding areas preventing trucks and other traffic from getting through. F-15's eat spare parts like candy. It wouldn't be long before they ran out. Food and other things too.

F-15's aren't very good at singling out the bad guys. In Iraq, we had real trouble finding the bad guys. It got to the point that we were told to look for guys in running shoes rather than sandals. They had to be able to run. F-15's don't do much in a war where you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Oh, and by the way, I doubt most of the military would cooperate with a war on the populace they swore to defend. But what would I know... I'm only a West Point grad with combat experience in Iraq and years of other experience Commanding troops from the USA to Germany and more.

 

Kent State was an aberration. A newbie National Guard Second Lieutenant, poorly trained and lacking experience, made a big mistake. Its hardly the norm.

 

Where do you get your cartridge from? That would be a logistical issue. How do you get fed? Again, logistics. You really aren't paying attention, are you?

BTW, the military aren't sworn to defend the populace. They're sworn to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.

So good luck with your hypothetical revolution.

 

Look it up. You don't seem to grasp the basic idea: the US military is not sworn to protect the citienry, it is sworn to protect the Constitution. Given that a revolution is by definition an enemy of the Constitution, guess what happens.

 

what if the government rapes the constitution?

 

The military will never fight the citizenry as a whole. It could get very chaotic though.

 

Not a reasonable analogy, since our troop numbers had been greatly reduced, to barely a footprint, too few to securely cover anything other than our route of exit. Then large numbers of Taliban fighters came into the country, from Pakistan, where they had been taking refuge.

If the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population were to revolt, you might have a point. But those who give any serious thought to needing to militarily oppose our own government, are only a small fraction of the country. Hence, the situation would be reversed from Afghanistan, in which we were needing to bring all our resources, to their "turf;" any relatively small band of revolutionaries, here, would be the ones who would, in effect, be on foreign ground. Our troops would have access to an enormous network of resources and infrastructure, including the eyes & ears of the rest of the population. And, of course, there would be much less political pressure, to bring our troops "home (as they would already be here)."

 

Some goat herders with AK-47s and homemade bombs and caves to hide in sent the US military packing in defeat