A 3rd civil war
Debate Rounds (5)
this debate is about if society collapses in the US, and the only things are looters, UN and american troops, and civilian militias I think the militias would win. FIrst round acceptance only. With society falllen there is no air support on either side, so accept, then arguments.
This is my 1st real fun debate, sthis should be interesting.
Hmm. I hope this will be a fun debate, :D.'
1. The two opposing sides will be the civilian militias (who are trying to rebel) and the U.S. Military, who have the support of the U.N. (Who are trying to pacify/control the states)
2. Society has been destroyed - meaning that this will most likely be a full-out war. (The CON probably won't agree to this, but I believe this will happen)
3. Resolution will be something along the lines of "In a civil war, it is probable that the US Military, along with the support of the UN, will defeat uprising civilian militias."
C1: In america a good percentage of Americans own guns.
As of 2005 30% of Americans owned guns, and 12% live in a household where someone else does. 57% say they don't.
You will point out only 30% own guns, well most gun owners own multiple firearms. I have about 21 firearms, my neighbor 30. And all have high capacity magazines except my 3 shotguns, and 2 revolvers. Plus 1 30-06 hunting rifle. All the others have a 10 round mag an up. So owning firearms will help the militias in a battle.
The Warsaw ghetto uprising:
Lightly armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto formed a rebellion on april 19th 1943. About 200-600 Jews armed with crappy pistols and few rifles held of 2000 highly equipped and trained German troops for a month.
So look, outnumbered lightly armed Jews lost the battle, but damaged the Germans badly. You will say 'well they lost', but to the contrary. If a small amount of non-trained, under fed, lightly armed Jews can hold off the best army in the world in those days for a month, than that is something to be said. You don't have to win the battles to win the wars, I garentee if 300,000,000 Americans armed could easily beat the US and UN troops, over time.
So the militias don't need to win the wars, but just kill enough of the enemy over time to ensure victory.
C2: Even if the militias lose the battles, they can push Pyrrhic victory, and overtime wear down the US forces.
A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost to the victor that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately cause defeat.
The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:
The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.
In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his.
So the catastrophic casualties force the victor to lose over time. Also notice it says that the Romans had more men, well the rebellion would too.
American military size: 1,468,364
American population= 307,006,550 (U.S. Census of 2009)
Guns in america: 90 guns per 100 people.
So, 30% of americans own guns, they own a lot more that 1 because theres 90 guns per 100 people. So in a civil war, 90% of that 307 million would be armed, let me do the math for you:
276,305,895 people have the potential of being armed. So here's what i comes down to:
276,305,895 vs 1,567,335. So if the militias cause enough Pyrrhic victories than the US and the UN wold be forced to retreat/get their butts kicked.
The US and the UN the new military tactics. These are the new tactics:
The militaries of today are largely set up to fight the 'last war' and hence have huge armoured and conventionally configured infantry formations backed up by air-forces and navies designed to support or prepare for these forces.
So since we made pre-rules this tactic would be hard to use. Society has ended, goverment buildings looted before the US troops could react, the planes and air support are gone. You get infantry, tanks, and armored vehicles. And the battle is locked for the most part, most part they will be divied in later. Since your tactic of air support is gone, it would be infantry with vehicle support. But that is easily un-done.
In my book, written by a military man, the showed that the military would lose, under these SAME EXACT CONDITIONS. It is easy to make molitiv cocktails, which will deal with the infantry easily. So the problem is the tanks...Well thermite bombs, easy to make, burns through armor.
The Militias would be using guerrilla tactics. They would engage at night, put thermite bombs on tank engines at night so they wouldn't be seen. Also it is easy to make a dynamite mine. They would place these mines all near popular roads, so when the tanks come rolling by the metal tires die. The tank would still work, but would be un-movable, so they would abandon the tank. So after a few months, the tanks Numbers would drop.
The Militia would get many allies, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and the terrorists. Those third party people wont play a direct role in this, but would smuggle weapons and ammunition to the militias. So they would get more sophisticated bombs, guns, and other needed supplies. So the Militia have a REALLY good chance to win this war.
C4: Modern history
The 2011 Libyan civil war
Similar situation, a group of citizens armed rebel against their goverment. And the no fly zone induced the same...air support options as now, none. And guess what, the rebels won! So modern history proves me right, for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Modern history, tactics, allies (indirect), Pyrrhic victories, and gun ownership all prove me that the militias would win. If former rebellions under the same conditions can win or inflict major casualties, why cant this rebellion? Since former ones can do it, so can this one. And according to my numbers my militia have more people than the other ones, and if you look at the ratio its like 200:1. So in conclusion, the militias could beat the army in a 3rd civil war. This last site proves that a civilian army could beat the US army, in many different ways, showing the ig weakness in our armed forces: http://victorhanson.com...
I'd like to point out some current laws that restrict civilians.
I've decided to start on my arguments first, as I may not have time for rebuttals...
Now, there are many differences between a group of civilians and the military. These differences can result in victory for the military.
-- Civilian militias and the military will have differing ways on getting their supplies. The military will have a constant supply of food, ammo, etc, from the UN. But where will the civilians get their supplies from? Obviously, they will be forced to search through empty areas and take whatever they can.
..>A. Civilians will be forced to compete with looters.
..>B. Civilians might even have to compete with each other, when supplies run low.
..>C. Civilians cannot win in the long run. Their supplies are finite and become corroded with time. However, the military gets it resources from outside nations, that have a constant flowing supply.
..>D. Heck, the US military might not have to fight at all. A simple 'sanction' and constant atillery fire can easily defeat the civilians and lower their morale.
2) Newly Formed Societies
--When the current society collapses, new orders will be formed within the civilians. Not so 'new' within the military. The military has already experianced 'wars' and already has established it's power pyramid. Civilians will be struggling to rise up to power and fight among themselves.
-->A. The Military has already established the ranks of people.
-->B. The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people.
-->C. There will always be greedy, selfish people.
-->D. Discipline and internal problems are more likely to occur within the Civilians.
--Say you have a family of four: your loved one, and your 2 children. Now a fanatic comes to you and asks you "come fight with me --we'll provide you with weapons." You are presented with the choices:
-->A. Leaving your family to fend for themselves and running off to fight a war with your own country
-->B. Staying and trying to do your best to protect them.
Where do the loyalities lie? It's needless to say that the majority of people with families cannot find it in their heart to leave their family in the midst of war.
--The US Military along with the UN force will have much more equipment for communications and reconnaissance. They have satellites for a communications network, along with a visual on the civilians' movement. Now what do the civilians have? Some cellphones and the internet? All of the possible ways a civilian militia can communicate can be monitered by the government. Furthermore, the US and the UN can track the movements of civilian forces.
-->A. The Civilians no longer have the element of surprise in any situation.
-->B. The US/UN Military have more oppertunities to strike with the element of surprise.
5) Undercover Operatives
--The US/UN forces are much more likely to be able to plant undercover operatives.
-->A. The US/UN forces have acess to large amounts of Intel on the civilian forces.
-->B. Step back and think about this situation. A small force of civilians are at rest, with a couple secret operatives that work for the US/UN forces. These operatives, under the cover of dark, blow up and gun down the force, causing severe damage and sucessfully crippling the civilian force. By then, it'll be a simple matter for the main US/UN force to waltz in and slaughter/capture the rest.
6) The Beginning of the War
--Where would our forces be located at the start of the war? Civilians are much more spread out all across America, and there wouldn't be a central control. Basically, mobs across America calling for a rebellion. The US/UN military would be able to seperate these forces, and create fronts as they please.
--Furthermore, the rebels will be forced to have to 'mobilize' their forces and gather them up. During this chaos, the US/UN military could easily deploy their forces and slaughter the civilians.
7) Artillery fire
--The US/UN military, as explained the above argument, would be able to create fronts as they please. This gives them the chance to set up atillery positions and fire on heavily populated areas of civilian forces, which could be determined through the intelligence department.
8) Sea Cities
--Sea cities won't be much of a problem, as the Navy could be involved. Navy ships could bombard nearby cities, making it especially easy for the US/UN military to come in. From this tactic, the US/UN military could collapse onto the Civilian forces, creating two sides: the East and the West, and continue their assault to meet in the middle of America.
--The US/UN forces will have much more acess to equipment. For example, they are equipped with combat boots, body armor, binoculars, robots, chemical and biological equipment, vehicles, UAVS, grenades, camoflauge, special energy bars, etc. All of these things mentioned could give a large boost to the US/UN forces.
CON says that there is a large amount of guns within America.
1) Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged people of rural small-towns in America.
2) Certain guns are not very common, such as machine-guns, yet these rapid-fire guns are rather common in the US/UN military, when you compare them together.
3) Most popular gun is a Colt M1911, a pistol. When you have people running around with semi-automatic pistols up agaisnt fully equiped trained military operatives with fully-automatic assault rifles, what do you get?
CON mentions the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
1) The situations are different, as you cannot compare the current US/UN military status to the German Army.
2) As I've stated before, undercover operatives along with artillery fire can cripple the Civilian forces, making the US/UN main military force simply a 'clean-up' crew.
CON says that even if the militias lose the battles, they can push Pyrrhic victory, and overtime wear down the US forces.
1) Once again, the US/UN military force does not have to engage in full-out costly conventional warfare. Tactics such as artillery fire, undercover operatives, chemical and biological warfare, can easily devastate civilian forces to the point of no return.
2) The Civilians and the US/UN forces are equipped completely differently. I'll bet that the majority of civilian forces will only have a pistol along with their normal civilian clothes to fend off the US/UN military troops. When comparing the two together, we see that the US/UN forces have better equipment in everything.
CON says that the Civilians will have a overpowering amount of people equiped with weapons, which can cause enough Pyrrhic victories to defeat the US/UN forces.
1) Different tactics can be used to kill off most of the civilian forces. (Artillery fire, undercover operatives, chemical/biological warfare, etc)
2) Most of the people will have inferior weapons.
3) The civilians won't have the time to distrubute these weapons among themselves.
4) Not all civilians can fight. You have to account for the children, women, and seniors, who have a large disadvantage at fighting. Not to mention that some people will have problems about giving weapons to a convicted criminal.
CON mentions that the Civilians will be able to use 'guerrilla tactics'.
1) The implemention of these tactics will be hard in the midst of chaos. *US Military can cripple Civilian forces
--Out of Room--
"It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department."
A few things:
1. you can get it via back market, even in anarchy countries where society has fallen the black market is still present.
2. So? Machineguns have what benifit? I will denounce their benifit in a later rebutal.
"Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged people of rural small-towns in America."
the poll is 17 years old, (1994) and almost 18 years old. An outdated poll. Find a newer one please, then lets converse.
"Civilian militias and the military will have differing ways on getting their supplies. "
They gat it from:
1. Black market
3. They can raid UN and US storages at night
4. Countries can smuggle in food (countries that hate the US and the UN). COuntries that would do this:
and 3rd party people
drug cartells, terrorist groups, and even possibly the looters.
"US military might not have to fight at all. A simple 'sanction' and constant atillery fire can easily defeat the civilians and lower their morale."
The citizens would engage the artillary at night and kill and capture the workers ang guns, then turn them on the US camps. Also sanctions don't always work i.e. some seiges, Iran, and even the warsaw ghetto revolt, it worked there, but had great cost.
"When the current society collapses, new orders will be formed within the civilians. Not so 'new' within the military. The military has already experianced 'wars' and already has established it's power pyramid. Civilians will be struggling to rise up to power and fight among themselves."
Once again, I am reading a book about this (hence the debate) and it shows that when facing a common enemy the civilians will form seperate militias, but allied militias fighting the foe. The enemy of my enemy is my freind. So in theory your argument is false.
"The Military has already established the ranks of people."
So can the militias. They choose a leader, and then make a chain of command. It's quite simple to do, so this argument is invalid.The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people.
"The Civilians have not yet established the ranks of people."
look at the argument above.
"There will always be greedy, selfish people."
That argument hurts you too, a general can be selfish and greedy too, infact that's more likely in this situation because the militias are in a fight for your life mode, the general is in a let's take advantage of these crazies mode.
"Discipline and internal problems are more likely to occur within the Civilians."
If your fighting for your liberty and you life, then your disipline would be high. Also the taliban fights well, and they don't have discipline, why does it work? Tactics. In pop up then pop down warfare battles are breif. The guys pop up, pop a few shots at marching soldiers, kill a few, set of a few road bombs and back down you go. You don't need disipline in those situations.
"Say you have a family of four: your loved one, and your 2 children. Now a fanatic comes to you and asks you "come fight with me --we'll provide you with weapons." You are presented with the choices:"
You forget an option, take the family. Your family needn't fight, just sit in the camp and march along. And also using my family is a bad example because we all are trained with rifles and pistols. But anyway in many war situations the family comes along. The taliban bring their families around, same deal with the militias. And I own 1,200 rounds of .223 ammo and plenty of guns, take out the we provide part :P.
"The US Military along with the UN force will have much more equipment for communications and reconnaissance. They have satellites for a communications network, along with a visual on the civilians' movement."
Yes, sadilotes, which means cell phones still work, so communications = bad argument. Also radios, militias would have those.
And also can they see you in the brush or in the woods with a sadolite? No. America has thouthands of acres of wooded areas which are perfect for ambushes, safe from sadolites. Also the night vision and the thermo spoters, what heppens when the batteries run out? You can charge radios and phones via solar equipment, but the US and the UN and the militias will lsoe that equipment over time. Also you can purchase night vision and therma red scopes at sportsmans warehoses. So the milita has a good chance of having a few of these, hence this argument even out.
"The US/UN forces are much more likely to be able to plant undercover operatives."
1. Since the militias have no set travel patterns how will the operatives find the militia?
2. The militia arn't dumb, they would interogate him, and he may crack. And also, if he was caught contacting UN and US troops he would be shot. A big deterent.
"Where would our forces be located at the start of the war? Civilians are much more spread out all across America, and there wouldn't be a central control. Basically, mobs across America calling for a rebellion. The US/UN military would be able to seperate these forces, and create fronts as they please."
lol those army's are spread out too. So the rebelions could surrond each military base in america, and overwhelm it. They are just as speed out, even more so. SO The US army would be overun by the time UN troop arrive.
"Furthermore, the rebels will be forced to have to 'mobilize' their forces and gather them up. During this chaos, the US/UN military could easily deploy their forces and slaughter the civilians."
Not really, one armed mob could just go in and overwhelm, no tactics needed, (arguemnt above). And the UN soldiers woudl take a while to get here because they'd have to get organized. Also so would the army, they would have to organize defences, plans, and their troops and arms before this could be done. So it would be US organizing and being overwhelmed, Armed pissed mobs, and the UN troops taking weeks to get there.
"The US/UN military, as explained the above argument, would be able to create fronts as they please. This gives them the chance to set up atillery positions and fire on heavily populated areas of civilian forces, which could be determined through the intelligence department. "
How do they do this when facing 100,000 armed citizens per base. Also I am going to steal your loyalties argument:
Stay at the base and let your family get looted, hurt, or possibly killed or draged in the war against you (choosing to join militia)
or leave/desert and help your family.
So the US forces woudl have mass desertians.
They can overun the naval bases and use the anti-naval guns against the US ships. But places like hawaii would be in trouble your correct.
"The US/UN forces will have much more acess to equipment. "
aurmored vehicles, guns, ammo, body aurmor could be purchased very cheaply via black market. Also with Irans weapons shipments the militia would be doing ok.
Once again, you rebuttals seem short, mal detailed, and weak. My historical arguments prove me right. Also my recent libya argument still works. Their army didn't criple them. Also vietnam great example, I will refute a refutation right now so that makes sense:
"The implemention of these tactics will be hard in the midst of chaos. *US Military can cripple Civilian forces"
Not really, those tactics where made for chaotic times. Also look at vietnam, gurilla tactics slauhterd US troops, and befor the US the french. So looking at a second historical reference, and how and what gureilla tactics do, this argument is false.
Now my promise about the machine gun ans automatic weapon argument:
It is easy to modify an AR-15 into an automatic weapon, you just need to rearange some springs and bolts and buy a peice which is legal to buy. Ans again, the black market is a option. Source: patriots (the book I mentioned above). Here's a site on how to convert them:http://www.hackcanada.com... (for an AK-47)
==Rebuttals for the past round==
Seeing that I ran out of space in the last round, I shall continue my rebuttals in this round.
CON mentions that the Civilian Militias would gain many allies.
1) CON thinks that the current enemies of the US government would help the civilian militias, based on the logic that your enemys enemy is your ally. However, we must examine this hypothetical situation. In the occurance of a civilian uprising, it is reasonable to assume that the civilians are not happy with the government and desire change. This leads us to believe that in this specific situation, the US government would be a tyrannical government. Now who would these current 'enemies' believe that the enemy is in this hypothetical situation. Right now, these opposing groups that the CON has named hate the US government and the US people. However, if the US government started to supress their people, I doubt that these enemy groups would have much resentment.
CON also talks about the recent Libyan civil war.
1) There are many different factors that can change the result of a civil war. The rebels received help from air strikes from NATO. These air strikes destroyed critical points in the Qaddafi's force. However, in the civil war that we are debating, it would be completey reversed. The US government pratically controls the UN and NATO and it is more probable that they will support the US government.
-->The recent Libyan uprising simply supports my part. Air strikes are important in warfare, and the Civilian Militias will receive no help, but the US government will have plenty.
==Defending my arguments==
CON argues that civilians can get machine guns from the black market and machine guns are useless, as you can modify an AR-15 into an automatic weapon.
1) Who would be willing to sell? The people we have any guns are much more likely to use their guns to...
--A. for Looting
--B. for self-defense agaisnt looters
--C. Attempt to fight the US Military.
2) Through reconnaissance methods and long-range attacks, weapons stashes can easily be destroyed. NATO destroyed 30% of Qaddafi's weapons. Similarly, the US government and the UN can attack the Civilians from a distance.
3) Machineguns can easily mow down large groups of fighters, if they are in the right hands. Trained military operatives are more commonly equiped with fully automatic weapons, know how to use them, and have a control center that is organizing their movements. All of these factors will result in the complete loss of the civilian militias.
CON says that my poll is outdated and therefore not relevent.
CON says that civilian militias also have ways to get supplies.
1) The black market will be almost non-existant. Weapons stashes will be destroyed by constant strikes by the US/UN, and blockades can stop anyone from smuggling in weapons.
2) Nature? Well I suppose anyone can make and mass produce grenades from nature's resources. Or perhaps create thousands, millions, of guns?
3) US/UN storages won't be present until the US/UN actually start the foot invasion. Up until then, the US/UN are likely to 'wait it out'. Blockades/sanctions and constant strikes will quickly deplete the civilians resources, destroy their morale, and break up the forces.
4) I've already explained why groups that hate the US wouldn't help out the civilian militias, and even if they wanted to, they wouldn't be able to get past the blockade without notifying the US/UN.
CON says that the citizens will engage the artillary at night and capture the weapons, then turn them on the US camps.
1) It is likely that the citizens won't be able to reach the supporting forces (artillary). Before the actual foot attack, long-range attacks could occur from Canada, Mexico, or ships that are off the coast of America. I doubt that the civilian forces will be able to invade a bordering country, locate the artillery forces, and capture them. Also, I don't think that the civilian forces have the equipment to engage in a naval battle with the US Navy.
CON says that the civilians are likely to unite in order to fight off the US government.
1) Not all civilians will have pure feelings. Without a doubt, the corruptted people (convicted criminals, thieves, etc) will see a possibile gain in the civil war and attempt to rise up in the ranks. Greed is unadvoidable, and civilian militias are less likely to be able to fight it.
2) The US forces have the 'MP' or 'Military Police' that help govern the ranks within the military. Furthermore, the military already has a 'chain of command'. http://usmilitary.about.com...
The civilian forces haven't developed this form of command, which leaves them disorganized in the event of a war.
CON says that the civilians can establish the ranks.
1) Is it truly that easy to organize millions of people into their positions? Who goes into what squads, that make up what platoon, that make up a company, etc. Can they easily determine who's the leader, who's the most qualified?
CON claims that there will be greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military.
1) If there are any greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military, they will all know their respective ranks, and their goal will be to be promoted, and to do this, they must preform and show excellence. This is simply a motive for people to achieve their best.
2) In the civilian militias, these greedy, selfish people do not know their ranks. They do not know their current social status. The prospect of quickly rising up while society is destroyed is simply too much for these people. More than likely, they will try underhand, corrupt tactics that cripple their fellow comrades. Perhaps they might even work for the US/UN government.
CON claims that there will be no discipline problems within the Civilian Militias.
1) Consider this situation within the civilian miltias. You are a civilian fighter. Within your small force, there is a shortage of food. You all know that everyone will barely have anything to eat. This would compel you to steal food and cheat your fellow comrades out of their share, simply for survival. On the other hand, the US/UN military have no shortage of supplies and they also have the MP, or the military police.
2) Within this argument, con claims that it will be simply "Pop up, fire off a couple shots, set off some bombs, and run off".
-->A. What stopping the US/UN military from using similar tactics? They have better intelligence on the enemy, better access to supplies, and are facing a weakened force (The long range attacks before the foot attack).
CON says that when a fanatic asks you to fight with him/her agaisnt the US/UN government, a fit male can simply bring his family with him.
1) CON mentions a camp and marching. This simply makes it extremely easier for government forces to locate the fighting civilian force. Undercover operatives, satellite imaging, etc., can easily find a large group of hundreds marching around and camping out.
2) Since these groups are easily spotted, they are also easily slaughtered/captured. With the element of surprise, US/UN forces can bomb, gun down, ambush, etc., these large groups of civilians. Word of this will quickly spread, discouraging any more people from joining these militias.
3) The majority of these fighting forces won't actually be soldiers. You have to account for the families of young children, women, seniors, etc, that cannot fight.
CON says that civilians will still have communications methods and there are areas in which even satelites cannot see you.
1) Cell phones, radios, etc, can all be monitered by the US/UN forces. The civilian militias will either have no communication or they could reveal everything from spying US/UN forces.
-->Shutting down cell phone services would also be easy. Example: San Fransisco's BART shut down cell phone services.
=Out of Room. Will Continue Next Round==
"CON thinks that the current enemies of the US government would help the civilian militias, based on the logic that your enemys enemy is your ally. However, we must examine this hypothetical situation."
SO, in a hypothetical WW3 there will be allies, also they would get a few. I garentee al quida and iran would join the figh via black market. And the al quida maybe even literally. The allies situation is factual. In all likleyhood the UN wouldn't be involved, but I added them in to be fair.
"There are many different factors that can change the result of a civil war."
Ok let me find a better example (although that one is a good one). I will use the russian invasion of aphghanistan.27 December 1979 – 15 February 1989
similar situation, far from society, the only difference is that you still have air strikes.
So similar situation, the rebles have supeior numbers (but in our situation it is more vast vs you).
So peoplesimilar to the militia in simlar circumstaances beat an army. (except in this situation the army has more tools as sociaty still exists). So in ths senerio the militias are worse off yet win. http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Who would be willing to sell? The people we have any guns are much more likely to use their guns to...
--A. for Looting
--B. for self-defense agaisnt looters
--C. Attempt to fight the US Military."
The US troops would have to fight the looters too as the looters block roads and towns to loot, and the US would have to fight them. Also the US troops would have to use roads to move their vechicles, the militia would just go via foot around looter roadblocks, forcing the US and UN to clear it out.
also people wlling to sell: black market.
also I have shown that you can modify your gun easily all the tools you need:
1 AK-47Your sites just say we need gun control. http://www.gallup.com...
this disproves your argument: guns ownership is spead out fairly evenly.
55 and older= 24%
So young people own guns, people in their 30's and 40's own guns, and middle age people do too. You claim almost all gun is owned by old people, but this proves that a wide variety of ages o guns.
"CON says that civilian militias also have ways to get supplies.
1) The black market will be almost non-existant. Weapons stashes will be destroyed by constant strikes by the US/UN, and blockades can stop anyone from smuggling in weapons."
Wrong in wars all throughout history people still smuggle in weapons. Ex: warsaw ghetto.
"1) It is likely that the citizens won't be able to reach the supporting forces (artillary). Before the actual foot attack, long-range attacks could occur from Canada, Mexico, or ships that are off the coast of America. "
hey your contradicting yourself. You say that thy would spend months shelling the militias, but now you say they will do a fot attack. I can't refute if you contradict yourself for me.
"Not all civilians will have pure feelings."
this is a refutation for the whole citizen thing.
The UN troops have a history of rape and other terrible things, these terrible acts would mobilize the civilians.
Also when the economy collapses so will society, it will be near anarchy. The goverment would intervene by taking away rights i.e. freedom of speech and try to end gun ownership rights. They would end freedom of speech to slow the spread of the rebellion, and try to ban guns to disarm the crowds, but these actins speak lowder then war. People will fight for thier rights, probably mobilizing forces.
"The US forces have the 'MP' or 'Military Police' that help govern the ranks within the military."
seems like a response to my loyalties argument. SO? FIght becasue the MP keeps you there? If your family has the chance of being killed by a mob I garantee that people would fight to the death to escape. Also people still desert even in this time without the addd family aspect regardless of the MP. Desertions are on the rise (still even without the family aspect. So these desertions would be mass desertions): http://www.nytimes.com...
"Is it truly that easy to organize millions of people into their positions? Who goes into what squads, that make up what platoon, that make up a company, etc. Can they easily determine who's the leader, who's the most qualified?"
while the chaos is erupting and the mass desertions take place and random mobs overwhelm US bases it doesn't matter. The UN would take a few weeks to arrive (proved above). Also in ambushes you only need a few leaders. The US troops would be small and spread out by the time of the UN arrival. So th emilitias would ave had a few days to work things out. The taliban doesn't have ranks as this, lol and they do ok. They have 1 leader and a few sub leaders and the fighters. A chain of comnd is easy to do. In 3rd grade we played a war game and we chose leaders easily. And it worked out fine. Sure it wasn't war but it's an example on how a chain of commad is easy.
"If there are any greedy, selfish people within the US/UN military, they will all know their respective ranks"
So? lower people can be greedy. Office managers steal money from their bosses all of the time. And their "low ranks" http://www.sltrib.com...
"CON claims that there will be no discipline problems within the Civilian Militias."
there will be a few but there won't be as many as you think there is. When fighting for freedom untraied people are good soldiers: look at the american revolution. I am using History to prove my points as history repeats itself.
"What stopping the US/UN military from using similar tactics?"
In afghanistan the taliban use hit and run and yet the US troops do not switch tactics. Again history repeas itself.
"Cell phones, radios, etc, can all be monitered by the US/UN forces."
cell phones use satilites, hard to moniter. And the radios can be on different channels And the UN and the US can't moniter all of them. Also the Miltias can moniter radio too. Double edged sowrd there.
I am running out of room as well.
in debate drops count as consessions, he hasn't argued many of my main points. I have argued all of his, and a few of his sub points. He has conceded about 25% of my case to me. Also I have proved that history is on my side. And that many of his claims are falacys and or false. The militias can win this war. VOTE CON!
"1. Since the militias have no set travel patterns how will the operatives find the militia?"
Well, the militia has to recruit soldiers from the general public? The operatives won't even need to look for the militia. Furthermore, you can track the movement of large groups from satellites.
"2. The militia arn't dumb, they would interogate him, and he may crack. And also, if he was caught contacting UN and US troops he would be shot. A big deterent.
1) The Militias cannot interrogate every single person who joins the group.
2) Not all operatives will be contacting the US/UN groups. In fact, some may even simply be 'loyalists' or 'patriots', acting on their own. And in the midst of war, would a civilian really be worried about who their 'allies' are communicating with?
" lol those army's are spread out too. So the rebelions could surrond each military base in america, and overwhelm it. They are just as speed out, even more so. SO The US army would be overun by the time UN troop arrive. "
1) Military strategists aren't that stupid. They would be quick to realize the situation once some civilians start attempting to attack. I doubt that in a civil war, the civilians will be able to coordinate attacks straight from the beginning. There is usually an escalation to the actual war.
-->Now the most likely course of action that the US Military is going to take is to pull out or try to establish a base within part of America. Pulling out wouldn't be a problem - Canada and Mexico are nearby and they have plenty of airplanes.
"Not really, one armed mob could just go in and overwhelm, no tactics needed, (arguemnt above). And the UN soldiers woudl take a while to get here because they'd have to get organized. Also so would the army, they would have to organize defences, plans, and their troops and arms before this could be done. So it would be US organizing and being overwhelmed, Armed pissed mobs, and the UN troops taking weeks to get there. "
1) Actually, the mobs need to distribute the weapons first - unless if my opponent wishes the majority of the mob to be armed with baseball bats and rocks.
2) As I've said before, I think that the military is likely to pull out or establish an area that is under their control first. And it wouldn't be that hard to mobilize. Plenty of airplanes and trucks for them to use, along with tanks to support them during transportation. The planning will happen after.
3) The US is one of the major contributors to the UN and part of the UN security council. Without a doubt, the US has a lot of power within the UN. It wouldn't take that long to get approved.
"How do they do this when facing 100,000 armed citizens per base. Also I am going to steal your loyalties argument:
Stay at the base and let your family get looted, hurt, or possibly killed or draged in the war against you (choosing to join militia)
or leave/desert and help your family.
So the US forces woudl have mass desertians. "
1) Well, as I've explained before, at the point of a civil war, it is likely that the US government has severely caused dissent among Americans. This suggests that the government at that point would be somewhat similar to an 'authoritarian' government. An authoritarian government with the power that America has is likely to commit some form of media control, propaganda, etc, in order to create 'loyalist' groups. You must see that a civil war doesn't simply occur without warning. There will be a evident rise and clashes will occur between rebels and loyalists. At that point, some areas will be classified as 'loyalist' and other areas classified as 'rebels'. Knowing your family is in a 'loyalist' area that is protected by US troops will satisfy many soldiers. In fact, it is much more likely that once the rebels realize that the US government will use chemical/biological weapons, and perhaps even nuclear, rebels are much more likely to give in and desert the area.
"They can overun the naval bases and use the anti-naval guns against the US ships. But places like hawaii would be in trouble your correct. "
So let me get this straight. A large group of angry people - equipped with basic weapons and perhaps even only their fists, are supposed to overrun a large force of trained military operatives that are prepared for a possible civil war? Of course my opponent could say that these mobs are armed with guns -- but they would have to equip and distribute the weapons amongst themselves. A gathering this big could be targeted by long-range weapons.
"aurmored vehicles, guns, ammo, body aurmor could be purchased very cheaply via black market. Also with Irans weapons shipments the militia would be doing ok. "
Does my opponent expect their to be enough grenades, body armor, combat boots, robots, chemical/biological weaponry, camouflage, special energy bars, etc., for every single civilian? I fail to see how the civilians could find, distribute such adequate equipment among themselves.
"Also my recent libya argument still works. Their army didn't cripple them. "
I've already said that the rebels received air support from NATO, which was critical in their victory. However, the air support and extra forces will be provided to the US government, instead of the militias.
"Not really, those tactics where made for chaotic times. Also look at vietnam, gurilla tactics slauhterd US troops, and befor the US the french. So looking at a second historical reference, and how and what gureilla tactics do, this argument is false. "
1) Well, did the US engage in chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare with Vietnam? No. Let me paint the situation for you. You are a civilian rebel. In recent days, you have fought with your comrades for weapons, attempted to assault a military base, only to find that it is deserted or it's heavily defended by fully equipped troops. Your home town and many more rebel areas have been bombed by chemical gas or biological weapons. The chemical gas knocking out and fatally killing many of your fellow Americans. And the biological weapons causing death and great fear among your allies as they try to control the spread. Only to be bombed again. You don't know who's infected or who's not, you don't know if you are going to eat tonight, and and you don't know who's to be trusted and who's not. Can my opponent really say that when the actual foot invasion occurs that the civilians will be prepared?
MY opponent explains how to modify an AR-15 into an automatic weapon
1) I doubt that the majority will be able to modify their own AR-15s, especially in the situation I've shown above.
2) Furthermore, I don't think that even with an automatic weapon a civilian would be prepared for a full on attack by the military.
3) My opponent still doesn't explain how the distribution will occur.
==Defending my Arguments==
"SO, in a hypothetical WW3 there will be allies, also they would get a few. I garentee al quida and iran would join the figh via black market. And the al quida maybe even literally. The allies situation is factual. In all likleyhood the UN wouldn't be involved, but I added them in to be fair. "
1) Since when did this become WW3? I thought this was a 'Civil War', hence the title.
2) You haven't answered my argument. Would Iran and terrorists really object to the US Government suppressing its own people?
3) Just how would these people help at all? Large cargo ships containing weapons wouldn't really go unnoticed.
4) The US is very involved in the UN. I personally think that the UN would help out.
My opponent uses the Soviet War in Afghanistan as an example.
1) The Mujahideen received unofficial military and/or financial support from a many countries such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and China.
2) The Soviets were in a foreign land.
3) They will be using different tactics.
I am out of space...again. I wish there wasn't a limit. I shall continue next round. (-.-')
I will be using a different refutation format:
1. Satilite movement
1. my opponnent mentions a satellite but he doesn't clarify how it will detect movement and how it can see through trees as the militias would know they would need ot use cover to move around.
2. Also he mentions they have no route. Actually the soldiers won't have planned out routes, they would just follow the road. The militias would stay off to the scrub near the road, doing ambushes as the walk. Well this was just an add on to the argument, not a rebutal.
3. My opponent also mentions recruitment. Yes small towns would not be major targets by the army and th emilitias would recruit from those small town increasing their numbers.
Yes they won't interogate everyone in the group. Also most agents would be with their families in the rukus as the mobs lynching their family doesn't sound appealing so they would go and desert to protect their families. The loyalties argument works better on my side.
Also sure even if they don't contact the US or the UN they can still look suspicious. Also they would have to because a silent spy is worthless. So they would have to contact the US or the UN at some point, leaving them vunerable.
I know military stratigists aren't stupid but when your trying to pacify a whole country your gonna have to spread out. Also even the best military stratigists can't totally be sure of an attack, terrible argument. Do you think David Petraus knew when the terrorists would come and attack him? Also German General Rommel in WWII didn't know when patton was going to ambush him. Or the persians at granicus didn't know when to expect alexander the great. History is on my side, luckily history repeats himself.
Also how would you know Canada and mexico would help? If the american society crashed so would everyone else for one reason, america is the biggest manufacturer and the biggest consumer.
America GDP: 14.66 trillion dollars CIA world factbook
World GDP: 75.54 trillion dollars CIA world factbook
If you took out 14 trillion dollars from that the world is in trouble. In the last ressecion america went down, china went down as we fuel their economy, canada and mexico died as we fuel their economy, and europe failed too. So all of the people you mentioned would be affected by this. History repeats itself.
you mention weapons, some will have it, others wont. A good percentage would have guns but others will have non-conventional weapons. Occupy Wallstreet had flag poles, you could also bring kitchen knifes etc. Heck a wine bottle after its broken wouldn't be pleasant. So people would have weapons. You will them pull the "well the army has more guns" Well I hope they are good enough to hold off 200,000 people. The army base in ABQ (airforce base) employes about 23,000 people. Obviously many will be computer guys and other non gun trained jobs. SO in reality the people with guns would he lets just pretend 15,000. So 15,000 people with guns vs 200,000 pissed of new mexicans with clubs. That is a 13.33333...:1 ratio. so they would be swarmed.
the number of people is from: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also how would they have good defenses if half of them deserted to help their families (see loyalties argument again) and the other half have poor morale. It just wouldn't work.
Yes the UN would approve the helping of the US but that's not the reason it would take a while. It would be the actual invasion and the planning. The D-day invasion in planning alone took 1 year, and they only had to cross a small channel, the UN would have to go accross the whole atlantic ocean. Also yes they would have to plan because if they cannot land in certian areas under militia control as that would ruin the day. So the planning would take a while.
good link for more info: http://www.worldwarhistory.info...
5. the desertians
civil war is a ba argument as buchannon let the south have their own agendas also an athoritarian goverment would just speed up the process. It would be a propagana thing the militias or the anti-goverment ralliers could use.
Also yes the rebles and the loyalists would clash but you just said an ahtoritarian goverment would take place so more people would be rebles. Also look at the revolution these clashes happened but the loyalists god tarred and feathered. They had few in number.
6. Raiding of naval bases
yes that's exacltly what I am saying, also little weapons lol my AR-15 would play rough, and my 2,000 rounds of ammo lol. Small weapons? Also Norfolk, the biggest US naval base (well a big one) has 30,000 people working there. according to http://www.globalsecurity.org...
This base borders many cities including annapolis. anopolos has a populatio of about 38,000 according to a wikipedia article.
it also borders baltimore, population 620,961.
So a lot of people would be swarming the place, even if only 50% of baltimore goes and 10% of annapolis goes the place would he overun.
7. aurmor and grenades etc.
No I do not expect there to be enough for every person, do you expect the US to no desert? So even without this stuff they will still be swarmed as in one od the early rounds I proved a huge like 100:1 ratio vs the US and the UN. Also do you know how easy you cna make molitov cocktails? or thermite bombs? It is quite easy the Army would have a tough time.
libya oh yes um libya no libya - herman cain
sorry had to do that
but I provided many othe examples above. So even if the voters agree with you here I had many other examples. So I see no need to argue when I have many other examples. It's a good example for the black market and the smuggling of weapons, guns, grenades, aurmor, RPG's etc. So even if is isn't a good military example it's a good black market in the time of civil war.
7. Vietnam example
not to be a political bashing but the UN are pinkos and would not allow us to do that as it is against interational law. Also they used the chemicals to kill trees but it didn't work. It has killed many generations of vietnam children and causing many problems, and the US would wan't a recovery that wouldn't destroy them. So there is an advantage not to do this, and the UN is involved this time and would prohibit the usage of those weapons and tactics.
8. Gun modification
many people could do it, me, my neighbor, my grandpa, all of texas (lol), all of my neighborhood. Also if you looked above I showed the modification of an AK-47 and all you needed was a twist tie, everyone could do that. So case closed, the militia would have fully auto weapons.
9. Civil war WW3 etc
it would technically be a civil war but the UN troops have men of many nations so technically it would be a WW3, but not literally, only via UN troops.
Also I did answer to your Iran argument. Yes the terrorists would because they say: we hate america, civil war = lots of emrican deaths, helping militia = anarchy america, yes our dream. So it would benifit the terorists goal of mass american casulties and the end of current american goverment. Also in those times they could recruit people for terrorism so it's a win win for them.
Well how would the US react when at war, also how would europe as they are in economic chaos without america, africa is terrirost in some areas so they wouldn't react. And also you could discuise it. Make a cruise boat, a motor boat, the drug cartells use submarines now, yes If you don't belive that look it up, so there are many ways they could help. Plus mexico border security would be non-existant so they could also go through there.
now a few probeems, out of room and my computers having a problem. So I have to end here :( I cant scroll up now SO i assume this is my last argument then so thanks for the debate :)
Hmm. This has been a fun debate. :)
From what I can tell, my opponent is confused that I included long-range attacks and a foot invasion. This is the scenario that I am trying to show.
1) Protests Start, Escalation to Civil War
2) Authoritarian US government increases Media Control and Propaganda in an attempt to secure Loyalist ties and confuse the Rebels. Government also warns UN.
3) Government starts mobilizing troops and reorganizing them to be located in 'Loyalist' areas, in preparation of war.
4) Mobs break out and attack military bases.
--->A. They find it abandoned.
--->B. They are met by far more troops than expected.
5) Government starts the long range bombing of Rebel Cities/States with chemical, biological, or perhaps even small nuclear weapons. UN starts mobilizing and joins in on the fight.
6) Government/UN mobilizes army to clear out the enemies that were too close to bomb.
7) They continue to look for survivors and reclaim America.
I shall use a similar format to my opponent in the last round.
1) Long Range Bombings will kill looters and rebels alike.
2) Loyalist areas will still be under control by the government, which means that harsh laws are still in place to keep law and order.
1)Smuggling. Who's smuggling these weapons? I doubt that a small organization such as Al-Qaeda will be able to help out the war effort. And furthermore, I don't think that the location of Rebels and the Loyalists will be known that well. And also, in an area of no law, drug is likely to go up and crime syndicates start to gain power. A bunch of crackheads won't do much in a war.
2) You must keep in mind that at this point, America would be somewhat of an "Authoritarian" government. People who hate America would think this: Help Rebels = Free American People = Help our enemies. Help Government = Continue Suppressing American People = Helping our Enemies Enemy.
The UN would think this. Help Government = Stop War = Stabilization of Global Economy, since the US is back in the market. Help Rebels = Who Knows What = Who Knows What. They are far more likely to go with the option that they are absolutely sure of.
1) The Common US Soldier - His/Her family would most likely be Loyalist one, just like them. This means that during the escalation to the war, it is likely that his/her family is located in a Loyalist State/City. What does this mean? It means that other US troops will also be in that State/City somewhat securing their safety. Furthermore, the government has strong control over the media and is most likely going to be deploying propaganda and false information.
2) The Common Rebel - His/Her family would most likely be rebels too. This means that their family is going to be located in a Rebel State/City. These areas are going to be bombed by chemical/biological weapons, almost ensuring their death. Furthermore, as the government leaves, the area is reduced to an anarchy, where crime usually starts running high.
Figure it out for yourself.
3) Undercover Agents. Apparently my opponent is trying to say that agents would stay with their families.
-->A. Their family would be with them inside the small militia group.
-->B. Their family would be at a loyalist city/state, protected by the military.
Also, I don't see how the agents won't be able to contact the US/UN. There are thousands of people in mobs and perhaps everyday someone disappears. Would they really get that suspicious and keep track of one person?
Furthermore, some undercover operatives won't be contacting the US/UN. Perhaps they'll just be targeting key members or perhaps set up traps. You can do this without the help of the US/UN.
1) My opponent has apparently conceded himself that it will be 'random' mobs that attack US Bases. This suggests that there isn't a productive or efficient distribution of weapons. Furthermore, the military is most likely going to be ready for a war.
2) From what I can tell, the Rebels aren't going to have much of a chain of command. Since the rebels are most likely going to be spread out across America, there won't be much 'mobilizing' - the Rebels have no idea where their allies want them to go. There is no one controlling this entire thing. This means that the mobs are likely to be small perhaps one city or community -- they aren't going to gather up a force of several states. Absolutely no organization.
3) The US government has control over the media and what the Rebels are seeing. This means that the government has control of information. They could give out false info, such as "the Rebels have won and the government has given up", and lead the rebels into false securities.
4) Within the US Military, one must get 'promoted' to get to the next level. This means that they must perform their best and achieve excellence in their superiors' eyes. Greed will only help. On the other hand, in the rebels situation, there are a lot of ways you can advance. Killing a superior and claiming their position? Giving out false information to try to bring people to you? There is no monitoring, no laws within the Rebels. Greed will undermine their efforts.
5. Historic Examples
1) The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - There is a difference. The US/UN's complete attention is being put on the rebels. Germany had to deal with multiple enemies and areas.
2) Libya - Somewhat Conceded?
3) The American Revolution - I suppose that in the past, guns were used much more often. Furthermore, the British weren't prepared for that sort of combat. On the other hand, our military today is much more efficiently trained.
4) Vietnam - Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures. The Entire Global Economy is at risk and there might be a power shift in the UN - they aren't sure what the Rebels are going to do. Everyone knows that they need to stabilize the US - and quick. When dealing with large, unorganized mobs, I think that these tactics would be the most efficient. (They might stop in the middle and switch to terror tactics although)
5) World War 2 - There will be an obvious escalation to war. Planning in the UN will occur long before the actual war, and differences in loyalist and rebel areas will be found quickly.
1) Items such as UAV Drones or Chemical/Biological Equipment won't be available to the general public.
2) My opponent claims that desertions would help increase the supply for the Rebels. See the Loyalties summary/argument.
3) The Standard Soldier would still be far more likely to be fully equipped than the rebels.
4) There is not enough organization or communication within the rebels to be able to distribute equipment.
1) From what I can picture, it will be simply thousands of people pouring into the streets and marching to the Naval Bases. This makes them sitting ducks for bombs, snipers, and ambushes.
2) I've mentioned this before - the military will regroup into strategic places. Loyalist communities are not likely to fight the soldier, in fact, they might even help out with the defense and provide Intel.
3) My opponent gives a "13.333:1" ratio. I think that's a little bit too easy. Throwing a couple grenades and mowing down mobs will quickly give a US soldier 14 kills. You must keep in mind that these troops are defending bases and areas. A group of angry people with knives, broken glass bottles, and flag poles, won't do much. There won't be the element of surprise, as they'll be spotted from practically miles away. In fact, the US/UN forces are far more likely to have the element of surprise - they will be setting up in strategic buildings that help to defend the area. Furthermore, what will a knife do against a tank? Or an armoured vehicle?
8. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
1) The UN would permit the use of these weapons. See "5.4"
2) Large groups of mobs (what CON is trying to go for) will quickly be annihilated.
From my perspective, it is quite obvious who will win. And that draws my arguments to a close. Vote PRO.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.