Very thought provoking. Hopefully, it's not been posted before.
http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html
http://billstclair.com/blog/stories/handgun.html
Depends, are we talking France? If so then yes you could probably get it done with a Jenings .25ACP
I think it's a very interesting philosophical question but it really boils down to will on both sides.
I am confident that individuals with appropriate will could arm themselves with an occupier's rifles.
However could they arm themselves with enough rifles to cope with modern technology?
Personally I doubt it.
Afganistan fought the Soviet Union for several years primarily with stolen Soviet rifles and were largely unsuccesful because the Soviet gunships killed just about everything they saw and were willing to use brutal tactics to cripple the population including planting mines intended for children.
However they achieved great success when the United States began equipping them with advanced weaponry and this combined with societal/economic pressure brought the Soviet occupation to a halt.
On the other hand, in our own revolution the British with much more comparable technology to those they occupied and much less will were unsuccessful in suppressing the rebellion.
I think that this question is also a bit different here since we have an all-volunteer army and I firmly believe that American soldiers would be much less inclined to use Soviet-style tactics on their own population and probably the majority wouldn't be willing to fight their own population at all.
My opinion is that if a vastly technologically superior oppressor is armed with the will to wipe out a native population, then this type of resistance will probably be futile.
However if the oppressor does not possess the will to wipe out a population and there is a sufficient percentage of the population that has the will to kill their oppressors, then this becomes a much more interesting question.
Michael Brown
I am confident that individuals with appropriate will could arm themselves with an occupier's rifles.
However could they arm themselves with enough rifles to cope with modern technology?
Personally I doubt it.
Afganistan fought the Soviet Union for several years primarily with stolen Soviet rifles and were largely unsuccesful because the Soviet gunships killed just about everything they saw and were willing to use brutal tactics to cripple the population including planting mines intended for children.
However they achieved great success when the United States began equipping them with advanced weaponry and this combined with societal/economic pressure brought the Soviet occupation to a halt.
On the other hand, in our own revolution the British with much more comparable technology to those they occupied and much less will were unsuccessful in suppressing the rebellion.
I think that this question is also a bit different here since we have an all-volunteer army and I firmly believe that American soldiers would be much less inclined to use Soviet-style tactics on their own population and probably the majority wouldn't be willing to fight their own population at all.
My opinion is that if a vastly technologically superior oppressor is armed with the will to wipe out a native population, then this type of resistance will probably be futile.
However if the oppressor does not possess the will to wipe out a population and there is a sufficient percentage of the population that has the will to kill their oppressors, then this becomes a much more interesting question.
Michael Brown
It would be cool if it were actually true.
In reality, the OSS never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and only a handful were ever distributed. Only the Chinese and resistance forces in the Philippines received the Liberator in any significant quantity. The Liberator was never issued to American or Allied troops and there is no documented instance of the weapon being used for their intended purpose.
Yes... I stole it from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
Yes, I think the idea was really cool and would love to have one for my collection. Not even the JM Davis Museum in Claremore has one.
However, I do believe one properly motivated former Jarhead with nothing to loose can do far more dammage than anyone can really immagine.
In reality, the OSS never saw the practicality in mass dropping the Liberator over occupied Europe, and only a handful were ever distributed. Only the Chinese and resistance forces in the Philippines received the Liberator in any significant quantity. The Liberator was never issued to American or Allied troops and there is no documented instance of the weapon being used for their intended purpose.
Yes... I stole it from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
Yes, I think the idea was really cool and would love to have one for my collection. Not even the JM Davis Museum in Claremore has one.
However, I do believe one properly motivated former Jarhead with nothing to loose can do far more dammage than anyone can really immagine.
The Jews in the ghetto were able to obtain many rifles from the Germans after obtaining a few pistols.
The big differance between the Revolution WWII and now is technology such as drones and the ability to take out vast areas with little effort.
Ultimately many of the issues will depend on if the attacker wishes to occupy an area, and how long after the devastation he is willing to wait. Or are they content with just destroying it.
Thermal imaging, reliable secure communications and IR use can provide a big advantage also.
The big differance between the Revolution WWII and now is technology such as drones and the ability to take out vast areas with little effort.
Ultimately many of the issues will depend on if the attacker wishes to occupy an area, and how long after the devastation he is willing to wait. Or are they content with just destroying it.
Thermal imaging, reliable secure communications and IR use can provide a big advantage also.
Very good article.
I imagine that if we ever had to fight our own government, that situation presupposes a large, over-powerful government, and such governments are almost always accompanied by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. This means that the most well-equipped and battle-hardened units would likely be deployed on foreign soil.
Also, take into consideration how large our nation is (in landmas as well as population) Our military only has 1.4 million or so active members right now. We have never attempted to try to place a nation the size of ours under complete military control. It would be impossible.
If our nation were placed under martial law, the government would rely heavily on police/para-military forces, who would have to be equipped (out of necessity) much like modern law enforcement officers. It would not be possible for the police forces of every single little town in America, even if they were federalized or something (think Waffen SS), to have apache gunships or a detachment of bradleys on call.
Certainly there would be military units stationed in the States, and they would probably be used in the areas with the heaviest resistance, but they could not be everywhere. Widespread domestic resistance would spread the government forces very thin, and could easily overwhelm them.
But like the article mentioned, this would require a citizenry with the will to resist. Out of all the people who talk big about how they would fight if this or that happened, I'm sure only a small percent actually would. But it would only take a small percent, if it were spread over the entire country.
However, we should all keep in mind that the whole point of having an armed citizenry is to keep the government sufficiently afraid of the people that they never even consider doing anything too tyrannical in the first place. The better we are armed and know how to use our arms, the less likely we ever will have to use them for the most important reason we keep them.
I imagine that if we ever had to fight our own government, that situation presupposes a large, over-powerful government, and such governments are almost always accompanied by a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. This means that the most well-equipped and battle-hardened units would likely be deployed on foreign soil.
Also, take into consideration how large our nation is (in landmas as well as population) Our military only has 1.4 million or so active members right now. We have never attempted to try to place a nation the size of ours under complete military control. It would be impossible.
If our nation were placed under martial law, the government would rely heavily on police/para-military forces, who would have to be equipped (out of necessity) much like modern law enforcement officers. It would not be possible for the police forces of every single little town in America, even if they were federalized or something (think Waffen SS), to have apache gunships or a detachment of bradleys on call.
Certainly there would be military units stationed in the States, and they would probably be used in the areas with the heaviest resistance, but they could not be everywhere. Widespread domestic resistance would spread the government forces very thin, and could easily overwhelm them.
But like the article mentioned, this would require a citizenry with the will to resist. Out of all the people who talk big about how they would fight if this or that happened, I'm sure only a small percent actually would. But it would only take a small percent, if it were spread over the entire country.
However, we should all keep in mind that the whole point of having an armed citizenry is to keep the government sufficiently afraid of the people that they never even consider doing anything too tyrannical in the first place. The better we are armed and know how to use our arms, the less likely we ever will have to use them for the most important reason we keep them.
I think Michael Brown and henschmen said it about as well as can be.
Similar threads
