Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Civilian Militia Effectiveness

This is a discussion on Civilian Militia Effectiveness within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; As often it is a question of determination, will and resources. If the conqueror is determined to hold on what ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 17th, 2009   #46
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,645
Threads:
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.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009   #47
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,074
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
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 ), 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...
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.

Last edited by Todjaeger; March 17th, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason: Grammar, argh!
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009   #48
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,906
Threads:
Well, the higher quotes are from 2005-2007...
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17th, 2009   #49
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
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."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
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.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2009   #50
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,015
Threads:
The Second Chechen war is an example of an insurgency suppressed by military means.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 18th, 2009   #51
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,906
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chino View Post
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
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009   #52
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
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".

Last edited by Chino; March 20th, 2009 at 03:36 AM.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009   #53
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 685
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009   #54
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Singapore, Shanghai
Posts: 685
Threads:
An interesting account of the Maoist Nepali resistance.

http://neilsnepal.wordpress.com/2007...-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.
Chino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009   #55
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,906
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chino View Post
Yup, it is a pretty short list.
Because i was too lazy to list more.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009   #56
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 13,015
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chino View Post
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.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2009   #57
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Threads:
Wink 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.
Honorforall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2012   #58
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Threads:
Oops! Sorry I didn't notice the date.

Last edited by Dodger67; October 19th, 2012 at 09:28 AM.
Dodger67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2012
Mike1234
This message has been deleted by AegisFC. Reason: Necro thread from a banned member.
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 PM.