[justratsinacoat]

Hmm. Big guns "that can be worked around with the correct doctrine" and unnamed "developed countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire and whatnot" and the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once. I think you believe in an organizational capacity that doesn't actually exist in untrained civiliian populations (or are personally part of a militia whose training is sufficient to back up your words). Thanks for your thoughts!

[angersock]

So, at the risk of feeding the troll still further...

What I meant by "big guns" is that the equipment the theoretical occupying force would have access to that the insurgents wouldn't, like rocket launchers. The stuff like grenades and LMGs are things that can be substituted--to some degree or another--by things like Molotov cocktails or hi-capacity magazines.

"Countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire" is not some special doctrine utterly beyond the reach of American populace; instead, it's the observation that, if you shell an American position, you need to be somewhere else in a minute or two before your position gets blown up. This is something that is quite empirically learnable, and something that has been learned multiple times by untrained insurgents fighting US occupying forces.

> the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once.

Where are you getting that assumption from? I made no such claim.

> I think you believe in an organizational capacity that doesn't actually exist in untrained civiliian populations

I think you live in a fantasy world where civilian populations both have no trained members (false) and are unable to improvise and learn tactics of their own through trial and error (also false).

You keep coming back to the same circular "I define the civilian population as incompetent and worse than the military, therefore they are incompetent and worse than the military", despite a lot of evidence and arguments that your assumption is wrong and your conclusions incorrect.

If you want to actually pull on your big kid pants and argue why each of my points in the preceding post were wrong, please do. If you just want to continue shitting out little paragraph-long "but but but civilians populations are always going to looose" zingers lacking any critical thought, we've all got better things to do.

[justratsinacoat]

>we've all got better things to do

Yet you keep replying! You're a solid troll, though -- I especially like the way you're willing to descend into insulting me far before I insulted you, but I'm glad the gloves are off. Could you be the other guy in a sockpuppet account? It's funny -- I'm the one claiming bullshit without evidence or argumentation, but your posts are really really light on what these "correct doctrines" actually are, why the civilian population would have access to any of them, how the resistance would communicate, insisting on the primacy of various rules of war that would have presumably been rescinded if the kind of tyranny that required standing up to was running the military... It's almost like you're just bloviating about American exceptionalism, handwaving about "doctrines" that all good minutemen surely already know. Sorry, but you guys have the biggest, best-equipped military in the world. No matter how Rambo the local shooting club might consider itself, it doesn't seem up to the task. But what do I know?!

>If you want to actually pull on your big kid pants and argue why each of my points in the preceding post were wrong, please do

Oh, don't worry. I can't do that! You won't accept it. That'd require not having an untenable position you're honour-bound to defend! I think you've already decided that your exceptionalism will protect you. I'm just having a bit of fun!

>"Countermeasures to things like mortars and counterbattery fire" is not some special doctrine utterly beyond the reach of American populace; instead, it's the observation that, if you shell an American position, you need to be somewhere else in a minute or two before your position gets blown up. This is something that is quite empirically learnable, and something that has been learned multiple times by untrained insurgents fighting US occupying forces

Uh. So you're arguing against the general use of mortars? "Get out of the way" only works if the mortars didn't kill you already. This isn't a doctrine, it's common sense. Yet, something tells me mortar operators still successfully kill people. Presumably it's not so easy to just... dodge. You're the obvious military expert, though -- maybe people do dodge mortars and they're basically useless once the Correct Dodge Doctrine permeates the opfor!

>> the assumption that the military loses its entire support system all at once.

>Where are you getting that assumption from? I made no such claim

Yeah you did. Where? Right here, from this linked post [0]:

>>>Underscoring all of this thought experiment is something you're missing: in a supposed US insurgency, the huge non-combat advantage of the armed forces _goes away_. Our adventures abroad are backed by a logistics system and lift capability that boggles the mind, only made possible because we can keep all the ruckus of battle away from our airbases and factories and transportation hubs. _In an insurgency, that massive advantage--one that's nearly taken for granted in the last two decades of warfare by our populous--disappears_

Emphasis mine. Man! Wow! I thought for a brief moment that you were a genuine person and not a troll. This cinches it. Thanks for the game, gg no re

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12963765

[zepto]

How is this comment anything more than sarcasm and condescension?

You haven't offered any counterpoints here.

[justratsinacoat]

You're really concerned about my opinions, aren't you? Hey man, if you don't think the quoted bits of my comment weren't just evidence-free appeals to the poster's claimed superior knowledge of the military capabilities of untrained civilians, you're welcome to elaborate on all those unexplained countermeasures and doctrines. Why I have to offer a 'counterpoint' to unsubstantiated claims is beyond me -- something tells me it's because you disagree with me, and that you wouldn't hold yourself to the same standard were our positions reversed. Why do I say this? Your previous interactions with me, which were disingenuous as hell.

[zepto]

Nope - nothing disingenuous. Other posters may not have offered evidence, but they have offered arguments and explanations that can be evaluated and rejected on their merits.

The only person in this thread who has claimed superior knowledge is you, because that is the the only basis for being dismissive rather than offering alternatives.

I do disagree with you. What does it even mean for our positions to be 'reversed'? We are simply people who disagree with each other. What is there to 'reverse' about our positions?

As for my previous disingenuous interactions, if you are referring to me quoting you about overweight gun owners, I stand by that. You were simply being dismissive and I was pointing that out. Nothing disingenuous about that. If you didn't mean it as part of your position, you wouldn't have said it.

[justratsinacoat]

>What does it even mean for our positions to be 'reversed'? We are simply people who disagree with each other. What is there to 'reverse' about our positions?

This is a pretty common English turn of phrase ("what does it even mean to 'turn a phrase'?"). This is what revealed your hand. Good try!

[zepto]

All you've done here is to further amplify your condescending attitude.

My point is that we are not in different positions, therefore there is nothing to reverse.