Could The US Citizens Fight Off The US Military?


The United States has without a doubt the
most heavily armed population in the world, with firearms being a part of daily life for
many Americans. While in many nations the mere sight of a
gun is an extremely rare occurrence, in the US some studies say there are almost as many
guns as there are people, while others say there are more- what is known though is that
much like American income, the majority of guns are concentrated in the hands of a minority,
with 3% of gun owners owning half of all guns in the United States. With this much firepower available to the
citizens of America, does it really stand a chance against its own military? The US military needs no introduction, it
has the world’s largest budget- more than the next seven competitors who are, in order:
China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan. Of $1.6 trillion dollars spent on military
budgets around the world, the United States accounted for thirty seven percent of the
world total. All that spending goes to support the largest
military presence on earth, with American bases spread out across every continent except
Antarctica. Greatly mistrusted for its all-encompassing
reach, US national strategy is in fact to avoid another major war such as the two world
wars and the countless wars that rocked continental Europe for centuries. US forces are therefore pre-staged in potential
conflict zones where in conjunction with local allies, their presence alone is a deterrence
to violence. The results are hard to argue with, seeing
as there have been no wars between major industrialized powers since the end of World War II. The US may not necessarily field the best
technology in every department- for instance, the Russians have for long fielded more sophisticated
anti-air and electronic warfare weapon systems- but it does bring a unique capability that
no other nation matches: the ability to field advanced technology across the board, and
not just in select areas. This makes the American military a lethal
force against any modern adversary, and has historically forced its major political adversaries
to seek out niche strategies for holding the US at bay. Russia for instance has for decades focused
not on stopping a US offensive outright, but in denying it the air power that would lead
to a quick win. To this effect they have focused on anti-air
weapon systems to knock US planes and cruise missiles out of the sky, and advanced electronic
warfare systems to disrupt the networked abilities of American weapons. While China tries to slowly build a naval
presence capable of standing up to the US, it relies on a huge stockpile of ballistic
missiles to deter the American navy- in fact, China is the only major power in the world
to have an arm of the military dedicated solely to ballistic missiles. Yet while the US military has proven time
and again it dominates the modern battlefield, it has historically had the exact same troubles
that every other military has when it comes to fighting low-intensity counter-insurgency
wars. When denied the use of its overwhelming firepower
and technological advantages, the US military is in the same boat as any other nation’s,
and must rely on low-tech, door-to-door action against insurgent forces who don’t use heavy
equipment and don’t wear uniforms. For all its military might, even the American
military has great difficulties in fighting an insurgency war. Should the American people ever rise up against
their own government, and that government authorize the use of military force against
its citizenry, the American insurgents will find themselves in an initially favorable
position against the American military. For starters, US forces are widely dispersed
around the world, meaning that unlike most nations, the least number of American combat
troops and equipment is present at home as compared to overseas. For the first few weeks of the war, the insurgents
will be able to carry out large scale operations that will become impossible once more and
more military equipment returns home. With the largest air and naval transport fleet
in the world, this initial tactical disadvantage the military will find itself in will quickly
be reversed. American insurgents could think themselves
safe from major retaliation, seeing as no country ever truly wants to destroy its own
infrastructure just to defeat an insurgency- let alone the world’s richest nation who’s
cities, highways, railways, and ports are vital arteries of global trade. Yet one of the US military’s major tactical
advantages against foreign adversaries will prove just as deadly effective against an
insurgency. Smart weapon were first developed to take
out pieces of Soviet hardware from afar with pinpoint accuracy. The ability to strike a specific target from
hundreds of miles away was a major technological offset, and a capability that Cold War Soviet
military planners greatly feared. An inventory of networked American bombs and
weapon systems could decimate entire troop formations and camouflaged artillery positions
with ease, while Soviet planes would have to rely on traditional and very inaccurate
gravity bombs and unguided rockets to strike back with. Smart weapons eventually spread around the
world, but to date no other nation has as large a stockpile, or integration, as the
US. With the ability to strike at pinpoint targets
and avoid collateral damage, American insurgents will quickly find themselves prey even in
the heart of major cities. American surveillance assets are also amongst
the best in the world. Having a nearly 20-year insurgency war under
its belt, the American military has finely tuned itself for counter-insurgent operations,
and is today the leading counter-insurgency force in the world. Not only has it developed a slew of surveillance
technologies to better locate and disrupt insurgent operations hiding amidst a civilian
population, but more important, its troops are highly trained in conducting urban warfare
ops and the traditional fight for ‘hearts and minds’. When the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in
the 80s, it did so as the world’s biggest military juggernaut and crushed all stand-up
opposition. However, within weeks the war shifted from
a conventional one to a counter-insurgency and war of attrition. The Soviets responded much in the Soviet way:
overwhelming firepower delivered very indiscriminately, and soon Soviet forces found themselves unable
to operate outside of heavily fortified positions. Any Soviet foray into the countryside would
have to be conducted with large amounts of manpower and heavy fire support, and often
it simply wasn’t worth it. The Americans on the other hand initially
did much as the Soviets, wiping out major military opposition within a matter of weeks
with overwhelming firepower. However, it was here that they showed a better
aptitude for fighting an asymmetrical war against a non-conventional foe. Wherever American firepower went, it was followed
by major civil relief programs, with a focus on building infrastructure and restoring-
if not improving- the lives of the civilian population. Very quickly a complex system of diplomatic
agreements and alliances arose between US forces and the dozens of disparate groups
who all claimed some piece of Iraq or Afghanistan for themselves. Ultimately the effort would result in a half-won
victory of sorts, which was still light years ahead of the total defeat suffered by the
Soviets. Unfortunately the US’s insistence on fighting
two insurgency wars simultaneously would force it to divide its assets, and ultimately result
in the mixed results we see today. Yet all the expertise, technology, and troop
experience gained from the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would come into play
against the US insurgents- and this time the US military will find itself with major advantages
it lacked in the Middle East. For starters, it has home field advantage,
and its forces are no longer operating within a culture they don’t understand very well. Cultural misunderstandings will be impossible,
and by understanding the American culture, the US military can better win the fight for
hearts and minds, turning many would-be insurgents from their path and garnering the support
of civilians who would have instead supported the insurgents instead. Secondly, it will be fighting to unite a nation
which actually wants to be united and has a national identity, making the process of
reestablishing a stable political system far easier than it was in the Middle East. Iraq had huge sectarian divisions that plagued
the country for decades, and were barely kept in check by an authoritarian strongman. Afghanistan was itself also only held together
by the very violent Taliban, who regularly used military power to enforce its grip over
the people. Without these authoritarian figures forcibly
uniting the nations together, Iraq and Afghanistan quickly fell to pieces that were very difficult
to put back together. Afghanistan would prove especially difficult,
as its people simply lacked the desire for national unity that nations in the West have
had for centuries. Americans however have a very strong sense
of national unity, and lack the sectarian differences and ideological conflicts that
would see the nation split up into a conglomerate of cabals in the case of national government
collapse. Sure, Democrats and Republicans may often
be eat each other’s throats, but ultimately as national tragedy after national tragedy
has shown, the American people stand united. As the old adage goes, you’re allowed to fight
with family and call them names, but if anyone else tries to hurt your family then you better
watch out. This sense of unity will make the job of counter-insurgency
far easier on American forces than it was in the middle east, and make it more difficult
for American insurgents to exploit a mistrust of the US military. Yet while American insurgents are out gunned
by the American military, they can take advantage of asymmetrical tactics to all but nullify
the US military’s overwhelming firepower. By following the same play book as the Iraq
and Afghanistan insurgencies, American insurgents could force US troops into close-quarters
battles where they couldn’t bring fire support such as air strikes or artillery bombardments
against them. American insurgents would also be able to
enjoy the advantage of fighting a near-total urban warfare campaign, given the size and
scope of US cities. As the first part of the 21st century has
proven, urban warfare is the great equalizer between military powers, as it denies most
of the technological advantages of a nation’s military. Fighting instead is door-to-door and house-to-house,
carried out by individual squads of soldiers and little more than the rifles and gadgets
they can carry on their person. With the US military numbering at just over
one million, and with potentially millions of American insurgent forces, victory for
the US military will be all but impossible. A fight between the US military and US citizens
would be a dragged out affair that would likely last as long as the overseas insurgencies. It would be less a war of weapons and more
a war of words, with both sides trying to sway the majority of the population to its
side. It’s likely that in such a war entire cities
would go rogue, with local city governments refusing to outright support the US military
or the insurgents, and simply wishing to be left out of the fighting. They would deny the military the right to
operate in its streets, but also not wish to support an insurgency which will bring
military action against it. Despite the huge glut of guns available to
American citizens, the truth is that there would be no major resupply effort courtesy
of an outside power. In the Middle East, Afghani and Iraqi insurgents
were kept well supplied by Iran, Russia, China, and Pakistan- amongst other actors- and trade
routes into the war zones often went through Pakistan who refused to allow US forces to
operate inside its borders and shut them down. In an American insurgency however, there would
be no neighboring power to supply the American insurgents, and the major trade routes into
the US through which arms supplied by a foreign power could enter would all be very easily
monitored and shut down by the US military. Within a year or two of heavy fighting the
American insurgency would find itself very low on ammo and very low on usable equipment. Yet the war would take a huge toll on the
American economy as well, which would in turn directly affect the budget of the US military. With major parts of the economy disrupted
by fighting or sabotage, the US military budget would rapidly shrink, and it would no longer
be able to afford to operate its vast fleets of modern equipment. In the end, a war of attrition would settle
in, and a winner is all but impossible to declare. It would come down to a sheer matter of will,
and which side would be willing to sacrifice the most to come out the ultimate victor. Yet as each side became more desperate, their
actions would lose them the support of the population they would rely on, and thus lose
the war for hearts and minds. Who do you think would actually win a war
between the US military and its citizens? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments, and as always
if you enjoyed this video don’t forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great
content!

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. The civilians could never hope to win a war against the government. Any effort of uprising would be spotlighted as "terrorists" most of the current generation does not even know what a gun is let alone how to use one. Put forward the fact the government wants to disarm it's civilians and democratic socialism. Gun owners are a minority. It will be easy to take them out. Ether way everyone is on a sinking ship.

  2. The USA isnt nearly as United as you say it is. Also, this country has huge cultural differences and I think we will see the country fracture under the cultural fault lines (which are mostly racial with some outliers in every faction because I dont think people are nearly as racist as the MSM puts whites out to be, most whites just want freedom of association) and we will see a balkanization of the USA.

  3. Lol no civilians don't stand a chance, most of them would throw down there weapons and pick up a cell phone especially the pro 2A guys. This video also didn't mention armoured vehicles

  4. Nice video, but you failed to highlight several area. The US military make up and the oath the military takes. The oath is not to one power of the government, such as the president, but rather to the constitution. It is projected that 2/3rd of the military will join the insurgency, and where they go so do their toys. So all that high tech drones and other gadgets would be in the hands of the insurgents.

    With the much military on the side of the insurgents they would also have a leadership, and counter intelligence. With that 2/3rd supporting the insurgents many with act as saboteurs within any members of the military that are loyalist.

    The final part you failed to take into account is the media. Not just the national media, but the media on the world stage. Any action the loyalist stage against its own people would have to be very carefully planned so as not to have the allies accuse the US government of humanitarian crimes against its own populace.

    This tilts the scales heavily into the favor of the insurgents being the victors in the end.

  5. THE CORRECT QUESTION: If the US government became SO corrupt to cause a civilian uprising, do you believe the US armed forces would feel comfortable shooting US civilians?

  6. No. US citizens couldn't fight off the US military. It's a pipe dream to even think so. For starters most of the nut jobs that do own multiple weapons don't have the cojones to actually face death and even if they did, they couldn't get bullets to replace what they might currently have. Their families couldn't survive not having an income to buy food, etc., etc…

  7. As an American citizen and seen the stats, and know the size of the u.s. Realistically the military would refuse action, and some would join in the revolution. the military can not fight an war that is 300 times larger then Afghanistan. And the police would refuse to disarm the papulose out of fear of death and everyone would buy up all the guns before they could take them away and deny they had them. In conclusion Us population wins government falls.

  8. I personally disagree with that no one would resaply new weapons and ammunition I'm sure Russia, China and Iran would as it would make perfect sense to keep the war going on so the only super power on the planet would destroy them self's and then Russia or China could take over. Well that would be my strategy if I was a enemy of America but I ain't I'm English so I think we would have to do something to prevent a world war 3 as Russia or China might send adviser's and boots on the ground, airsaport which would escalate the situation.

  9. in this video you forget to mention the constitution and the oath the military takes to uphold the constitution if the government is not following the constitution then the military would not take orders from the commander and chief in a civil war conflict but would fight for the people second the military like you stated is 1 million strong active duty give or take the american people have roughly 275million guns and plenty of ammo stocked up just for this instance the second amendment was not written to go hunting it was written to stop a tyrannical government and in a civil war say left vs right the military as history show would lean more right and side with the people and not government

  10. AHh.. your list of top military spender is wrong. It's from 5 years ago both Russia and UK cut down their budget since then.

  11. Here is how it will play out, first of all,if these criminals tried to order the military to attack us, most would refuse the ones that didn't would face not only angry citizens but most of the military, they would be destroyed pretty quickly and the beheadings will commence these rich and powerful politicians would quickly find themselves dead,and the United states government would be rebuilt with even stronger laws preventing corruption in government and protecting their citizens.

  12. The citizens fund the military. Of the citizens went against the military they would simply win by not funding it 🙂

  13. Ya know, I am now realizing that the 2nd amendment put in place to be able to fight back against the government is useless when you have this ^ against you…

  14. Am i the only one that thinks that the USA are going to take over the world seeing as they have their armies are all over the world
    quick easy and can be done in a week month at least

  15. No one wins a war, it doesn't matter how strong army you have war affects a nation and it's citizens anyway. A prolonged war in Afghanistan and Iraq affected Americans in the disguise of a great depression. How much the War with Iraq was necessary we all know. Except the killing of Osama bin Laden these two adventures of America gave nothing. They have been only loosing since begining of all this, some people die in battleground but some die in their motherlands starving.

  16. Well, there's the "Right wing wildcard" to consider. The chance that a US nuclear weapon sub's captain could turn rouge and basically call Washington and tell them to stand down or get nuked. That is a potential threat that US strategists take very seriously. and the fact that the majority of the US military will either side with a right-wing faction or just say they want no part.

  17. This video misses a huge portion of who would be fighting who. Depending on the reason people decide to fight the government it's also likely a huge portion of the population would back the military as well.

  18. Ever stop to think that the insurgents would resupply from the us military by raiding supply convoys and scavenge off the fallen us troops? Besides I'm sure any soldier wouldnt wanna fire on civilians/insurgents.

  19. 2:42 minute mark all I hear prior to this how China building navy Russia has better anti plane and electronic warfare system tgan US. Thisvis anti American propaganda

  20. The Second Amendment was about preventing the central government
    from developing a standing army that could be used as an instrument to suppress
    states' rights. That theory was put to the test during the Civil War. 

    It failed.

  21. This is pure conjecture. Very much fiction. Anyone who tries to start an insurrection would be crushed by the media. Our news media is the world’s best propaganda machine. After the media is through with him, Charles Manson would be eligible for sainthood. There are those in the military that would fire on civilians. Recent history has shown that. Kent State University in 1970(I think that is the year). National Guard unit fired at killing students. 1992 LA Riots, the militarized police going street by street with armored cars. There is Waco. Remember the tanks? So precedent has been set with military force being used on civilians. Now as for today, the question to be asked is what weapons would be used by the military?

  22. Another real question is would there be many US soldiers unwilling to fight against its own ppl. I feel that quite a few military personal would either not fight its own countrymen but might even switch sides to help their own families. Just a thoughy

  23. But Russia’s economy is bad so there military should go down as well and democrats would be depending on republicans for protection like a bigger brother

  24. Also, the Military would be divided as well, considering that they too are American Citizens. The military would see people desert the cause to fight for the people.

  25. Have to say one of your worst comparisons to date, While I very much respect our military they just do not have the numbers to fight a 4GW war here in the US, also far more former military live here and can lead civilians and they also know the inner workings of how the military would try and take down the US population. You must also take into affect that most military bases are right in our cities and would have to have a very sizable force to protect them, it all comes down to a numbers game and the military just does not have it.

  26. Short answer: It would largely be a draw and a ceasefire would be needed. Even presuming that the military is willing to eliminate civilians, because of the mutually destructive chaos, neither side would emerge totally victorious.

    BUT! that being said, in an all out war battle to the death, the military would ultimately emerge victorious and maintain dominance of the areas it occupies. The federal government would survive mostly unscathed.

    Ultimately, at best the insurgency would fragment the US and result in territories that become independent of centralized federal control. But make no mistake, the federal government would not be destroyed.

  27. Yes the American civilian population can fight off the American Army simply because the American citizens make up the American Army.

  28. No rebellion would work without a significant section of the military joining it.
    Private ownership of firearms would simply supplement this revolution. The military tech would be used to combat both sides.
    Needless to say both sides would suffer a lot of casualties and the whole country would turn into a third world country overnight.

  29. I want to know if the US were ever taken over by a foreign power would our American citizens be able to form a reliable residence to over come or occupiers, who agrees?

  30. No mention on how easily it would be for any civilion to cut the grid witch would just spread the disorder, no water or food for a few days and people can get outright deadly.

  31. Yes – cause most of the US military( officers to basic soldiers, marines and sailors ) would rebel or refuse orders to attack citizens- the president and any senators that ordered the military to attack the public would be KILLED or imprisones; there would be chaos for a few weeks and then back to normal government and economy

  32. Also take into account that of the approximate 1 million “boots on ground” military, over 50% would likely defect or become saboteurs after being told to fire on fellow Americans.

  33. Simple answer, yes. Heres why
    Most likely the only reason the military would come after us is over a gun confiscation sparking a civil war. The military has big toys, yes. But however, they would not be able to use them. Plus they took an oath to upload and defend the constitution. Taking away weapons would not be upholding the constitution, so a huge portion of the military would not be apart of it. As of to why they would not be using their big toys (drones, tanks, bombs etc) If they started using all of that stuff on US Citizens, a foreign nation would step in, aid, supply, and help rebels. Government wouldn't stand a chance if We The People came together.

  34. The real question is this:  why did the author of this video feel it necessary to draw a correlation between guns and income disparity?  Completely off topic. Sounds like someone's politics is showing…

  35. "China is the only military in the world to have a branch dedicated to it's missiles"

    Russian Strategic Missile Forces: "Allow us to introduce ourselves"

  36. But if the government messes up and citizens rise up against them the military is supposed up hold the constitution.

  37. This is poorly thought-out. You have more than 20 million former military alone. You also lose half of the military immediately once this conflict starts, along with their hardware and technology so the 'insurgents' would not run out of weapons because they would be easily available from current stores and from the military that join them. Also from weapons and ammunition taken in battle not to mention the vast stores of weapons and ammunition that would be recovered from the government store houses along the way. There is much more that could be added but the bottom line is every scenario that has been run to examine this shows the government losing in a relatively short period of time

  38. 1775 British America – Threat of French INVASION, Threat of Spanish INVASION, Threat of Native American ATTACK, Government help ~ 4 MONTHS away = Right to bear arms = 2~3 rounds a minute Kentucky Rifle. 2019 United States of America – ZERO Threat of Invasion, Last Indian/foreign raid – 103 YEARS AGO Government help ~ MINUTES away = Second Amendment Right to bear arms (Written 1787) = 300+ rounds a minute AR-15 and 300 MILLION CIVILIAN FIREARMS = 1,500,000 American Citizens SHOT DEAD IN LAST 50 YEARS, 1/3 of WORLDS MASS SHOOTINGS ~ 23 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS A YEAR, Black American men 15 X More likely to be SHOT/injured than white men, 1,000,000 US WOMEN have been SHOT or SHOT AT by their partners ~ 1000 Police FATAL SHOOTINGS every YEAR. NRA DIRECTLY INVOLVED in politics. Can the US Citizenry overthrow the government… Yes, but at what cost?

  39. what this video failed to address is that virtually the entire military would turn on the government if it tried to wage a war against us. The key after this happens is keeping the Constitution from being shredded after all the fighting is over and done with.

  40. You forgot to add desertions and internal fighting among the US military. If the government looses power many states will raise militias to maintain their power. Loosing states will eventually fragment the US causing a real civil war were armies will clash at the beginning. It will also cause other countries to take advantage and attack US bases and eventually the US itself.

    The people don't want that so it is possible that with the idea of socialism that has gotten a lot of support lately the US could become authoritarian and fascist to survive.

  41. In fighting the government, the people would have to first demolish by force municipal law enforcement as those are the ones who would try to confiscate weapons and disrupt supply lines of local militias. From there the Federal Government would have to try and convince servicemen who stick around to engage their fellow countrymen in domestic guerrilla warfare. Survival of the militias would be dependent on securing at least a few of the ammo manufacturers around the country and opening distribution lanes. The military has stockpiles of small arms and ammo, a vast logistical network, and the ability to reinforce law enforcement in squashing an uprising.

  42. So what I heard was that the only way to get the Federal Government to rebuild our country's infrastructure would be a civil war… that cant be the message, can it?

  43. hAVE MANY VETS IN MY FAMILY MILITARY NOT THE PROBLEM OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM IS BAD PPL IN OUR GOVT JUST LOOKING FOR BRIBES INSTEAD OF PROMOTING LAWS THAT HELP THE PUBLIC.

  44. No, but they will never have to fight them.
    If there's ever a war, civil or invasion, the military will have to secure all the WMDs and weapons depots, to prevent total war/loss of materiel, and anyone deserting their post on that task will probably not be tolerated long…
    You can't go to war against your own weapons.

  45. The problem with this "What If" is that the Citizens and Military Personnel are one in the same. There is little to no chance of ever seeing the members of the Military attacking their own family and friends. What you would see is thousands of people not following orders.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment