Just relised I forgot to account for local law enforcement. I think this would only add about 2 million at most to government forces as i think you would see smiler defection rates. Combined with lack of training for a larger scale conflict I feel comfortable only adding 2 million to the governments manpower.

 

while this fact strengthens your argument, in the interest of accuracy : as of 2008, the number of State and Local sworn (meaning authorized to carry weapons and make arrests) police officers in the US was 809,000,,, the rest of the appx 1.1 million L.E. employees were "civilian" , that is to say administrative clerks , 911 operators,, police lab techs and such

The number of sworn Federal officers in the various agencies was 120,000

thus the total gun toting police was 929,000

a good question might be, how many of those would toss away the years they had spent qualifying for their pension, how many would actively engage their fellow officers with violence, and how many would join a "cause" that had no certainty of success,, and one that should it fail would likely have caused their death , disablement , or subject them to incarceration ,
see 18 USC section 2384 & 2385

 

Always good to brainstorm. Here's my earlier take on the same thoughts...

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showpost.php?p=6691542&postcount=150

There are ~2.2 million Americans serving in the armed forces (Active, Guard, Reserve), although that number is shrinking due to mandated draw downs and budget cuts. There are roughly 1.2 million police (full time, part time, reserve...state, federal, local).

(Edit to add: US population may be 319 million as of today. My earlier post used 314 million as a planning factor.).

 

Lets say, China, Russia, and whoever else sat aside, and didn't take the opportunity to pounce wile we were weak. We are a unorganized group of individuals. They are organised, and coordinated. That is one of the main problems we face.

another major problem we face is we bicker like children about politics, and Glock or 1911. We have no united focus other than we hate what they are doing.

One benefit we have however is we are fighting for our liberty, they are mostly fighting for their paycheck. That would help keep some in the fight longer on our side.

We also have plenty of retired or walk out police, and military that would uphold their oaths. The insight to the other sides tactics would be beneficial to us, as would the training of those who have not been in either force.

There are many other factors to consider. Warfare is not just about our numbers vs. their numbers.

 

another major problem we face is we bicker like children about politics, and Glock or 1911. We have no united focus other than we hate what they are doing.

To be honest, so does the military, especially when they are put into a politically or morally uncomfortable position. Something along the lines of a Civil War would fracture units just like it fractures society.

There are many other factors to consider. Warfare is not just about our numbers vs. their numbers.

It is more about logistics than anything else. If the US Military could keep their logistics network intact they would win. Of course, the US Military doesn't have much experience when the fighting is in their own backyard and their own family is at risk.

 

your math, regardless of how fuzzy or accurate it may be, leaves out an important component... leadership.

of the numbers you are looking at, and perhaps "hoping" would rise up to bust ol Bammy in the chops, how many are truly leaders that the masses of rifle toting rebel forces would rally around...and those, btw, are your primary targets for the professional forces to come after..just ask ol Osama how well i worked out for him.

to your point about the recent fugitive..yes, one guy can hide in a sea of people for a period of time, even in today's high tech of cameras everywhere and sniffers on any financial transaction, and internet news posting "have you seen him" pictures to the public...

but trying to organize mass resistance requires leadership that can convince folks NOT to lay down arms be they firearms, or free speech, or sanctity of the home.

 

Good point big...but I think we could safely assume that the necessary leadership would come from defecting military and police units, and some of the bright light conservative politicians like West etc. I suspect the scenario would start with an initial bloodbath for the 'rebellion" that would so sicken many oath holders that when they stepped up to lead many would flock to them and it would become a Red Dawn like scenario with pockets(mostly rural) of the country turned into fortified enclaves that would be very costly for the Gubberment to assault even with superior weaponry.
The real issue i see is communications and coordination of activities between these fortified enclaves and freedom of movement to turn it into a true nationwide resitance...allowing the government to isolate the strong pockets and deal with the weaker ones therby eating the elephant one location at a time.

 

If their is ever a second civil war I hope things go more like the fall of the Soviet Union with the military mostly just sitting back and letting it happen.

 

I think the rebels would lose because too many idiots would be checking their facebook and twitter and giving away their positions.

 

or kids or never done nothings or poser/fake accounts on survival type boards find out they can't BS anymore, the get killed or just never leave their basement/mom's house?

That frein guy was the stereotypical survivalist--complete buffoon trying to play army, never done anything, never will, still living at home, playing dress up.

The adults caught up with him. Now the kid's going to be someone's cellboy for the rest of his life. Love it.

 

Personally I don't think government forces stands a chance if for lack of a better word the rebels are united behind a cause and a leader(s). It would take an event where the risk/reward was worse for doing nothing than acting.

If the actions or perceived actions by the federal government created a situation where the people are forced to act in self defense. If for instance open borders creates an environment for ISIS and Ebola to flourish in and the government's plans are either non existent or worse encouraging it and people are dying in large numbers. In that case I can see people of all persuasions demanding action.

But not until the threat of non action outweighs the threat of action. I would hope in that events states would act on behalf of its people.

 

All I have to say is the government would most likely start in big cities. Mostly liberal antigunners would be overcome first allowing news of such events to reach the rest of the country. Short of aircraft I suspect the government would have a very rough time once they hit the rural areas who are expecting such action.

 

OP, your numbers are way off. Try 300,000,000+ firearms. 50%+ of households have firearms. Even should you count 1 person per house owning a firearm, and 4 persons per household, you'd have 40,000,000 gun owners. Additionally, many in the military and law enforcement would join against the government while many more would at minimum disassociate. There will not be a 2nd Civil War. There might be a few skirmishes but no Modern Era Fort Sumter.

 

I think to many of you are looking at lack of leadership as a bad thing. Without a head there is no way for the enemy to cut it off.

 

I would put the end numbers at around 2 million fighters for the USG and about 7 million for rebel forces as I think my initial estimate of willing fighters was high. This would make the USG outgunned by about 2.5x and that number would likely only go up as fighting went on.

iraq had the us outmanned 10x more than the numbers you are using. how many hours did it take us to destroy their forces and push into baghdad?

 

Thats a conventional army not a guerrilla force they are 2 very different things.

 

Yeah,but about 3/4 of those you stat'ed about are Chicken****'s, yuppie first time gun owners,sick, old, lame who own for home protection....what is needed to counteract the feebies as you postulate are for those high numbers of gun owners to be infantry/combat ready....which they are not...

 

First off Flash don't assume old means useless...I'm certain there are still a lot of "oldtimers" on this site that can still KATN as good as any youngins!!!!(at least long enough to greatly thin out the enemies numbers before we expire)


Secondly don't underestimate the power of a righteous cause(like protecting home and family) especially after the righteous indignation most of these former liberals will be feeling for having bought into the delusion and having their bubble burst by the very 'saviour" they creamed themselves over. As for infantry combat readiness yes having it out of the gate is better but if ably lead and trained in infantry basics by the vast pool of former vets available they'll put up a decent fight. The ones who would break and run probably won't sign up to begin with.

Secondly morale is going to be a huge issue for the military...not only still suffering the aftermath of Obammy's social engineering experiment on the military, not only having to suffer careerist **** heads who now lead them, but also the anxiety of having to fire on family, friends and former brothers(defecting units). if the governmetn gets too Stalinist the only effective force they will have is Homeland Security and their billion rounds of ammo..oh and the TSA to pat down those danderous wheelchair bound old ladies for IED's.

 

Don't forget the vets we have now. combat and otherwise.

 

The 2 most important and largest variables here are leadership and logistics. With logistics after about a month of fighting I think the economic rug would be pulled out from under the government forces due to international economic fears. This would leave them not that much better supplied then the rebel forces. As far as leadership goes some decentralization is required when fighting a larger force I think a good example of organizational structure in this case would be anonymous highly decentralized and acting as more of a consensus. I think most other things are agreed upon such as high defections and fighting force sizes.

 

The 2 most important and largest variables here are leadership and logistics. With logistics after about a month of fighting I think the economic rug would be pulled out from under the government forces due to international economic fears.

I think your vastly underestimating how well stocked the government is. Think about how much stuff you could stock pile if you had a credit card with unlimited credit that you never had to make payments on.

Also they can always just confiscate what they need from the evil rebels.

 

1. Leadership with clear plans
2. Organizational Communication
3. Resistance of unarmed people to not comply also

 

Also I cant think of any point in the last 300 years that any government has been able to fully suppress a rebellion once it turns in to a shooting war.

 

Seriously? 300 years? Is That Because You Aren't Trying...



or just can't think?

 

thimk a bit here fellas,, What are many of us concerned about causing chaos and "everyman for himself"

The Grid...all TPTB need to do is shut the power off for a couple weeks,, , the food * fuel stops getting delivered and the heat , if it is winter, and they bring the entire population to its knees , save for a few thoroughly prepared people, which as we always say, is only a tiny minority,

 

You want to break the PTB structure,, the government of bribe takers bought and paid for by them ?

Everyone vote, and no one vote for any candidate who is promoted by them simply vote for some 3rd candidate for each office who has not been promoted on Television

Let them spend their billions and get Nothing in return, not a one of them elected

That would upset the apple cart , and one of 2 elections like that and they would see the futility of spending that money

 

Nice exercise , counting rifles

anyone consider Armor ? no,, not body armor....tanks,,,, APC's
or artillery ? Aerial Gunships, Naval bombardment ? Strafing ?

this thread is a big DUH

nice fantasy for the illogical

 

Do you have any idea how much it takes to keep those things working? Between spare parts gas and ammo they would be bricks at the end of 3 months tops in my opinion not to mention the defections will limit the number of people trained to operate these things.

 

Interesting reading but reality is always different than your plans and expectations. But since we are just hypothesizing, here is my take.

There is a revolution coming but there are no leaders and no real sides. There are the neo-cons (those who hate democrats but love illegal wars, they get off on the military killing people), they are largely in the midwest and south. There are the liberals (they are no threat on their own but they are in control of much of the government). You have all the racist groups (Black Panthers, KKK, skinheads, etc) and they will play limited roles in limited areas. You have the hard-core Christians (generally fall along the same lines as neo-cons). Then you have the military, police, and other paramilitary and government organizations. You have Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and then you have the largest and most troubling group...the Sheeple. Those people who go along with the government and do as they are told. They give power to the government but do little else.

So here is my idea of how a full-on civil war would play out. The government would try to control the population centers and would be heavy-handed and it will be a mess. Lots and lots of sheeple live in the cities and they cannot survive on their own. The gangs will take control of many parts with the police and military in disarray (they couldn't even control Afghanistan after a decade). The suburbs will be in shambles as most are also Sheeple but rely on government less. Most city dwellers and suburbans will die if things get bad enough.

The midlands will have some military presence but local militias will take over small areas. Some will be good, others no so much. Local police will fall in line as they cannot go up against that many people. These groups, even though they have similar beliefs, will battle over land and resources. It will be worse in places like Tennesse and West Virginia.

The South will have huge problems with the Mexican gangs who will take over large areas. Militias will crop up to combat them. It will be a mess between those two and the government.

The government will control parts of the Northeast and most large cities. Gangs will control anything the government cannot. Militias will control rural areas. There will be heavy fighting anytime these groups meet. There will be millions dead in the first year. The old, sick, fat...all dead.

Certain like-minded groups will try to unite but there are no longer core values in America. Those who believe in the Constitution have been generally corrupted by the Republicans and neo-cons or the the socialist movement disgused as Democrats. In reality they are all the same. They seek to control government so that they can forward their own agenda. The Liberals want to limit freedom and play Robin Hood with the world and Republicans want to support big corporations, limit freedom, and go to war around the world. These groups will go to war with each other not realizing how similar they are and how they have been fooled and brainwashed by the government.

Yes, I see a civil war coming but the government will fall quickly and the regional factions will duke it out. It will be a bloody mess. My take on it anyway.

 

only way i see rebels winning would be if an outside source that has weaponized space took out all of the satellites and take away the communications and gps. with the intelligence infrastructure intact, you'll be at the short-end of precision munitions and it'll not only be devastating, but debilitating on morale.

 

You are all ignoring the fact the US military has never had to fight with limited supply's before not to the extent of almost no production anyways. Even with the stockpiles they have they still would not last more than a few months without resupply. A resupply that would not be coming with the economy reduced to an IOU.

 

limited supplies? where do you get that from..First of all the have enormous stockpiles..Second., most factories will still be operating even in the middle of a civil war..It would be the rebels suffering from lack of logistics not the military

 

I seriously doubt that there will be a second civil war in the US.

 

Would the race / illegal immigrant war count ?

 

the last point and a very important one is the US has never won a guerrilla war and it is even more unlikely they could do it in there own back yard.



I would put the end numbers at around 2 million fighters for the USG and about 7 million for rebel forces as I think my initial estimate of willing fighters was high. This would make the USG outgunned by about 2.5x and that number would likely only go up as fighting went on.



Tell me what you think of my estimates and where you think I am off and before its said I know I think about this way to much. :

Being in the U.S., the military would have the same advantage. They train here.

By the time something like that happens the numbers most likely won't look the same as today. How many civilians will turn in their guns? Some already have.

 

Also, things aren't nearly as bad as they would need to be for a second civil war. The U.S.military invaded the south and started the last one. A legitimate organized government was there to resist. It didn't happen because people were fed up with their law makers.