• Oisteink@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      It can be done with guns or it can be done without. Can is the magic word here, and guns are optional.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      You’re gonna need a nuke, big guy. You aren’t taking on the American military with your lil pea shooter.

        • Dexx1s@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          But it would be an easy war of attrition no? How many died/almost died because Texas couldn’t handle a lil iced? How long could those states last without resources from outside? How much of their materials are usable raw?

          Do the “much guns” states actually have a decent bit of knowledgeable people? Being able to shoot a gun is fine and all but a war is far more than that.

          The biggest worry would probably be the ones already in the military who could/would easily sabotage any efforts. And yes, drones are easily beating rifles when it comes to depleting each other’s resources.

          I know fuck-all about guns and war but my armchair is warmed up.

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          The US won all nearly all their engagements in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The difference was the lack of public support to keep those wars and occupations going.