🚀 go-pugleaf

klaatu (klaatu@clark.net) wrote:
: George Worley wrote:
 
: > >You might want to understand warfare before making such a claim again.
: > 
: > Being that I have been around the military for a good majority of my
: > life, I do understand warfare and in the current state of civilians
: > bring arms against the government... my money is on the military.

: But the point here is really this: most of the military would in any case be
: fighting for the ideal of "America". And they'd clearly know that if they
: tried to suppress a universal revolt, what would be left would be nothing like
: the ideal they'd fought for... and so you'd not only have a 250 to 1
: population difference, much of it armed, to suppress, but also a war against
: the ideals that the military professes to serve. I guess they'd lose because
: they wouldn't really want to win.

     Your stipulation was that the military 100% backed the government.
I'll grant this is not particularly likely, especially after they saw
the damage being done, but as long as that stipulation holds, my
money is on the military.