In both the American Revolution and the Civil War, the opposing armies had regular troops as a backbone. The American Revolution itself would've failed had the Continental Army not transformed from the militia to a real Army. They also had the benefit of the regular military of the Netherlands, France, and Spain being on their side.
Thanks to the Indian wars that occurred after the American Revolution, Congress realized that we needed a regular military and took action on it. This saved us when the War of 1812 came around. When the Civil War broke out, the regular military formed the backbone of both sides.
Meaning, citizen militias were not sufficient to keep the fight going... Even if they had veterans among them.
Historic reality shows that we would not end up having a revolution or a civil war if the Democrats succeed with their steal... Without the regular military as a backbone. At best, we could have sectarian violence but it would not benefit our side in the long run.
What would more than likely happen is that "Constitution Sanctuaries" would be established. Conservative counties and localities would likely declare themselves a sanctuary where the Constitution would be respected and protected. What's considered as "unconstitutional" would not be enforced. There could be states that join in this effort, and refuse to enforce federal laws deemed unconstitutional.
Here's a good news when it comes to military action... There's not enough people in the military to effectively put these counties under control... the more counties declare themselves constitutional sanctuaries, the more difficult to enforce. The geographic and climate problem that makes the United States nearly impossible to invade works against attempts to implement martial law in large areas when support from the population is absent.
However, sectarian violence could erupt if Antifa or BLM tries to harass these counties. The anger and rage being bottled up, and shown online, would rear its ugly head during these confrontations.
RealAWTcav: Not likely?
I'm basing my arguments on four decades of being a history buff studying events like this among other history related events, and on my quarter of a century, cumulative, of military service. I speak from both experience and knowledge.
RealAWTcav: You're a fucking retard.
Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job so that you don't post as if a retarded ghost possesses you.
Whenever someone resorts to insulting me, without advancing a valid argument, I see someone with anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues. I recommend that you get that fixed. These same issues are clouding your judgment with regards to what would happen should the Democrats succeed with their theft.
RealAWTcav: It'll pop
You think it would. If you and your buddies go around and start shooting, what next? Do you have a plan, or an idea, of how this would be a sustained effort among people who do not have operational and strategic level span of control with no supporting logistics?
You do realize that, in my debating with people online over the past 17 years, that I've categorized the opposition into apparent psychological profiles, do you? You revealed yours the moment you made your first reply to me, a record in those 17 years.
There's a purpose behind every word, sentence, and paragraph that I use in my reply, and it's to get the opposition to react a certain way... It worked like a charm with you... Like clockwork.
I'm also PSYOP. :D I laughed when I read your reaction. I do hope that someone close to you is strong enough to keep you away from your weapons should Biden be illegally seated in the White House. If I were a member of a militia organization, and someone like you wanted to join, I would argue against that person's joining.
You'd be a liability. Now, to debunk another one of your arguments.
RealAWTcav: First, your formatting proves you're nothing but a tryhard faggot.
False. Your argument is so erroneous that I had to take it apart point by point, like what I'm doing here. Herein lies the underlying reason for your having issues with my formatting.
RealAWTcav: Second, we're living in unprecedented times with a level of informational awareness and access that is revolutionary.
Those conditions occurred during the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and so on. The fact of the matter is that these changes have occurred throughout history, where those facing war have things available that were not available in the previous war. Changes in technology, and culture, does not change human nature.
RealAWTcav: Look at the arab spring. Social Media was used organically and deliberately to destabilize and entire region.
You do realize that the Arab Spring, as seen throughout the Arab world, was not a civil war, nor a revolutionary war, do you? Now, the parts of the region that devolved into prolonged war, regular military units were involved... If not by the United States, by other nations. Beyond that, it was sectarian violence, which I mentioned in my post above.
Additionally, the controlling regimes in that area were inconsistent with the desires of the Western elites. Here is a key as to why your comparison would not apply to the United States. The more accurate comparison would be Venezuela. My scenario, laid out above, takes that into consideration.
Our taking to the streets, from coast to coast, a la Arab Spring would not only play into the hands of the leftist elite in this country, it would play into China's hands. That is if something like that could get underway.
In the Arab spring, there was majorities, in each country, that wanted change. We don't have that here. Keep in mind that the left in this country will be happy with the change, and would not support conservative movements. In fact, they think that we're completely wrong and have "no basis" with our complaints.
I could go on, but you should be getting the picture on why you are wrong.
RealAWTcav: We're seeing that same form of resentment toward the political establishment in the US, with a measurably aggressive population.
Not from the vast majority of the population, as was the case with the Arab Spring. Again, when compared to the whole population, those of us that see this election fraud are not in the majority. There is a larger percent of people who don't see fraud, and who think that we've become a frenzied "cult of personality" people engaging in irrational and radical behavior.
RealAWTcav: Third: Who said anything about immediately shooting?
When people talk about a revolution, or civil war, as I've read both on this site and on other conservative sites, then one has to conclude that there are people who want the shooting to start.
RealAWTCav: Do you not understand optics and dissemination?
Yes, unfortunately, based on your argument on this thread, you don't. Again, I have a quarter of a century of military service under my belt. A couple of MOSs that I held were 11B Infantry and 37F PSYOP. On the Navy side of the house, I was required to gather information on a strategic, operational, and tactical levels, and to formulate a battle picture that included projecting what the opposition/enemy would do. These skillsets carried over into both Infantry and PSYOP.
RealAWTcav: The people who are already in a heightened state of alertness are openly calling for arms at levels unprecedented in American history just by volume, not to mention geographically.
If you read my original post, this fact is factored in. It's one thing for people, on the ground level, to call for arms on the internet. However, when things go hot, who is going to coordinate combat maneuvers among them at an operational or strategic level? Who is going to keep those groups supplied? With no echelon available that everyone could respect, differences in opinion could be fatal to the effort to continue the fight.
You also have to factor the environment, psychological or otherwise. If the regular military doesn't support the "revolt" or "civil war", lack of discipline, lack of combat arms, lack of combined unit or coordination would work against such a revolt.
Most civilians don't have the mojo to embrace the suck over a long period of time. Meaning, such a "revolt" or "civil war" would lose momentum as more and more people wake up to reality and decide to return to their normal lives. This was a constant issue during the American Revolution.
You're embracing a lot of "whataboutisms" from the comfort of your home office.
**RealAWTcav: You literally have an urban population trying to dictate terms to a rural one.
From a realistic perspective, my scenario above, regarding counties and states putting their foots down, would occur.
RealAWTcav: This doesn't end will in history quite often, Mr. Buff.
And, in the majority of those instances, a regular military formed the backbone of successful revolutions. Where does the regular military play out in your scenario? You need to quit looking at this as if you're playing a video game. This is the real world that we are talking about. Not a video game.
RealAWTcav: Fucking dumbass.
You don't like it when people don't do things your way, don't you? :D You substantiated my description of you having anger issues, control issues, and excessive ego issues. The military in me would be uncomfortable having someone with your temperament, and "reasoning", in the same unit. And, if we did have someone like you, that someone would more than likely be stuck in the Tactical Operations Center, possibly the latrines and not the Tactical Operations Center, and away from operations.