Civilian Militia Effectiveness

[kato]

IIRC there are something like 900 million (yes, million) firearms in private ownership within the US.

1997 numbers, legal firearms:
- 65 million handguns
- 127 million long guns

Numbers have been rising a bit, current estimates put it at 220-230 million total, with some excessive estimates topping 250 million in private hands. Plus around 25 million in government hands (police, military).

 

[Chino]

Well if you close off all the borders leading into a territory, where will the insurgency get their weapons? Assuming you can rely on your own troops not to sell theirs, that would cut supply lines.

Even when the Germans closed up the Jewish ghetto, the resistance were still able to arm themselves.

 

[Gremlin29]

Even when the Germans closed up the Jewish ghetto, the resistance were still able to arm themselves.

This is true, and they put up a valiant fight for which they shall always be remembered however, the net effect to the German war machine was neglible at best.

Keep in mind guys that the US is not as homogenous as you might think. Different regions, different mentalities. An invader would have a tougher go in certain regions, versus others. I'm not convinced California as a whole, has the mentality or material to resist. Put the invaders into Washington or Oregon and you'll see a different response and greater possible impact.

 

[Waylander]

I would like to emphasize on the will of the attacker to inflict civilian casualties to any country which resists with a certain amount of guerillas.
Sure insurgencies can be a real pain in the ass but a country which is able to conquer the US at some time in the future and makes the creation of guerilla forces necessary might be a very powerfull one.
And if this country decides that it isn't going to play by the rules it could get very very nasty.
Modern armed forces can wreck havoc on civilian centres with a very short reaction time. That's if their leaders let them loose.

A insurgency can be very effective if their enemy plays by the rules and tries to win the hearts and minds of the people.
If the attacker just decides to go roman and answers any resistance with overhelming force and destruction it becomes unwinnable very fast.
Not a very effective way of resistance if the enemy wipes out a small village for every soldier lost to a guerilla attack.

 

[Gremlin29]

A insurgency can be very effective if their enemy plays by the rules and tries to win the hearts and minds of the people.
If the attacker just decides to go roman and answers any resistance with overhelming force and destruction it becomes unwinnable very fast.
Not a very effective way of resistance if the enemy wipes out a small village for every soldier lost to a guerilla attack.

I agree 125%! I could be wrong but I feel that is why US civilian types fighting a PLA force using guerilla tactics wouldn't be effective or last long.

 

[Waylander]

As often it is a question of determination, will and resources.

If the conqueror is determined to hold on what he conquered and has the resources and will to go after an insurgency even if it is for decades he will win in the end be it because the guerillas/the population lost the will to go on or because there is no one left to resist.

I am also very sceptical about insurgencies as a whole.
There are many people out there who point out that insurgencies are seen as relatively impossible to beat these days.
They say that one just has to look at the Taliban or Hezbollah to see that.
What they often fail to show is that neither of these insurgencies has been able stop a determined foe of entering their territory and are not able to stop him from acting as he wants albeit he takes some losses.

An insurgency is a last resort and often enough causes much more pain for your own country than for the attacker.

 

[Todjaeger]

1997 numbers, legal firearms:
- 65 million handguns
- 127 million long guns

Numbers have been rising a bit, current estimates put it at 220-230 million total, with some excessive estimates topping 250 million in private hands. Plus around 25 million in government hands (police, military).

I am a bit fuzzy on the numbers (one side effect of posting when :sleepy), it is possible the 900 million was worldwide small arms total. From what I do remember of the recent numbers, there has been a dramatic upswing in the numbers and availability of firearms in private hands within the US. I would not be surprised if the number more than doubled from 1997 to now. Particularly with the changes in the US sociatel and legal climate both post-9/11 and after 2004.

As a side note, I regret not being able to open my own gun store 3 years ago, I would have made out like a bandit

As both Waylander and Gremlin29 commented, an insurgency is a effort of last resort, to be used when fighting an opponent that one is one able to engage in directly (conventionally). Unfortunately, it also relies upon the enemy somewhat to be effective... If faced with a ruthless foe who does not have an issue with committing atrocities to achieve victory, an insurgency becomes ineffective as the insurgents rely upon knowledge of local areas and the ability to blend in with non-combatants. If a the occupying for adopts an attitude of everyone being a combatant...

 

[kato]

Well, the higher quotes are from 2005-2007...

 

[Chino]

There are many people out there who point out that insurgencies are seen as relatively impossible to beat these days.

Maybe it was what I said earlier?:
"Time and again, they have been proven near impossible to eradicate by military means alone."

If the conqueror is determined to hold on what he conquered and has the resources and will to go after an insurgency even if it is for decades he will win in the end be it because the guerillas/the population lost the will to go on or because there is no one left to resist.

Any examples?

Most examples of invasion followed by occupation I can think of in the last few decades are/were met with determined insurgencies. And time and again, it is shown that the local resistance usually has more lasting power than most invaders.

Even in current Iraq and Afghanistan where the occupying foreign armies are not 100% unwelcome, resistance was/is still very fierce.

I can't think of many good examples of low resistance to foreign enemy occupation.

I can think of Tibet. Any more?

What they often fail to show is that neither of these insurgencies has been able stop a determined foe of entering their territory and are not able to stop him from acting as he wants albeit he takes some losses.

That's not the role of insurgents or guerillas. The Vietnamese resistance from French to US occupation, operated by day as farmers and insurgents by night. They are not 24hrs in military mode.

And because you use conventional standards to measure insurgency success/failure, you keep coming up with the result that most insurgencies are NOT successful.

The Vietnamese insurgents probably suffered many times the casualties of the invaders and regular armies. But you can't say that they have failed. They won. They won by wearing down the enemy, by tying him down etc... not defeating it in the conventional sense.

Like ants. You can kill many of them. But eventually you move your picnic somewhere else.

But it is also incorrect to say that insurgents has never been able to deny an area to an invading army as there are many examples where they have.

An insurgency is a last resort and often enough causes much more pain for your own country than for the attacker.

??

Maybe if the invaders are really nice, the civillians may not resist.

But in general, invasions/occupations are resisted.

 

[Feanor]

The Second Chechen war is an example of an insurgency suppressed by military means.

 

[kato]

But in general, invasions/occupations are resisted.

Sudetenland '38
Albania '39
Iceland '41
Baltic Shield '45
Germany '45
Tibet '50 (until the USA got involved '56 anyway)
Egypt '56 (ok, a couple days...)
Namibia '66
Czechoslovakia '68
Falklands '82
Kuwait '90
Solomon Islands '03

 

[Chino]

Sudetenland '38
Albania '39
Iceland '41
Baltic Shield '45
Germany '45
Tibet '50 (until the USA got involved '56 anyway)
Egypt '56 (ok, a couple days...)
Namibia '66
Czechoslovakia '68
Falklands '82
Kuwait '90
Solomon Islands '03

Yup, it is a pretty short list.

And I said "in general", which is different from "definitely". Besides some of your examples are incorrect (in red):

- Germany offered fierce military resistance. But the people were eager for the war to end, why would they fight the occupation?

- Tibet is a "maybe" because apparently there was an armed uprising.

- Egypt 1956 is a military vs military action. Irrelevant.

- Falklands? One website described the Falklands 1982 as having "a population equal to a large block of flats" - about 1,800 people and a lot of sheep.

- Kuwaiti military and civilians (in smaller numbers) both resisted the Iraqis until liberation.

- Solomon Islands? Gee man... I won't call a peacekeeping mission requested by the local government an "invasion/occupation".

My time frame reference was more "post-ww2" because that's when large war-stock became available to those shrewd enough to squirrel them away. And also heavy industralized production of small arms especially by USSR.

EDIT: add "respectfully".

 

[Chino]

The Second Chechen war is an example of an insurgency suppressed by military means.

An honest question... They were definitely (and ruthlessly) crushed militarily. But are the Chechens considered completely subdued yet?

 

[Chino]

An interesting account of the Maoist Nepali resistance.

http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/my-time-with-the-pla/

They are armed mostly with captured security forces weapons including:

- 7.62 NATO Bren
- .303 Lee-Enfield
- FN FAL SLR

There's also what looked like a small hand-held mortar.

 

[kato]

Yup, it is a pretty short list.

Because i was too lazy to list more.

 

[Feanor]

An honest question... They were definitely (and ruthlessly) crushed militarily. But are the Chechens considered completely subdued yet?

Chechnya is more stable then the rest of the North Caucus from what I can tell. The security there has been handed over to local Chechen units, and only the 42nd MRD elements are still present there. There are occasional terrorist attacks, but relatively few and far between. Compared to a region completely in control of Chechen and foreign fighters, recognizing no overall lawful authority, the situation right now is peace. I would consider that a victory.

 

[Honorforall]

Honor

Greetings everyone, I am new to the forum and would like to start off by saying thank you to every American soldier from the past, present and in the future. By serving, you allow us civilians to own firearms among many other rights. I would like to say that I believe in a time of severe crisis, the great people of this country will unite and learn how to survive in combat. Everyone is born with honor and courage. It takes a kick in the ass to make us understand it and to live by it. A young person joins the military, the instructors kick em' in the ass to learn honor and courage and many many other skills. Civilians dont have that luxury. Some choose not to and some were not allowed to. If this country ever got invaded, that will be the kick in the ass civilians need to learn and they will be come just as deadly as a American soldier. I give credit to ALL militias in this country. Not only will they defend our country from foreign invaders but domestic tyrants trying to turn this awesome country into something our forefathers never wanted it to be. They train alot, especially the Michigan militia. You must also remember, alot of soldiers will put in their mandatory minimum time in the service but militia members stay for life.

 

[Dodger67]

Oops! Sorry I didn't notice the date.