Posts: 2,072
Threads: 62
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
0
I guess I don't quite understand the logic. Because I look at it and think "Okay, so there's one side that has soldiers with guns. And there's one side that also has soldiers with guns, and civilians with guns (some of whom are, in fact, retired soldiers with guns). I think the second side has a lot more guns."
Basically I don't see an armed populace as something that could be safely ignored, unless they're willing to just glass the country and start over.
-Morgan.
Posts: 2,310
Threads: 148
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
An interested and involved populace is going to be the determining factor in any such conflict.
If the opposing element has limits to how far they're willing to go, as the British did during Ghandi's campaign for Indian independence, then whatever armaments the citizenry have will never be needed.
If the 'regular forces' are willing to spill a great deal of blood, then the populace will, eventually, end up heavily armed and engaged in guerrilla warfare. If they have weapons useful for that to start with, they'll use them. If they don't, they'll acquire them, either from home machine shops or black markets or foreign governments friendly to their cause.
No amount or quality of weaponry is going to change what happens to irregulars if professionals find their bases and hiding spots, any more than a semi-trailer's bumper cares if the dog it's smearing across a hundred feet of freeway is a labrador or a mastiff; the key factors will be the general population's willingness and ability to conceal and support the irregulars, rather than what the guerrillas started out having access to.
===========
===============================================
"V, did you do something foolish?"
"Yes, and it was glorious."
Plus, of course, the concept of an actual popular armed uprising against a modern first world government is hilariously remote. The chances of it happening while the armed forces are on the government's side is even more remote.
