Biden: "If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1407815444703100928

I somewhat agree with uncle Joe here tbh. Your rifles can't do anything against tanks and helicopters. A single abrams tank or an apache helicopter can leisurely defeat any number of militias.

The Vietnamese had a standing military with tanks, artillery and even an air force. The vietnamese air force downed hundreds of US aircraft during the Vietnam war. Plus they were heavily armed by the Soviet Union and China.

The Mujahadeen was also heavily armed by the US and Pakistan during their war with the Soviets.

The Afghans tho largely lived off of smuggled weapons and left overs from the Soviet era.

In Vietnam and Afghanistan the US simply left because fighting any longer was not worth it and netted no real benefits. In a civil war in the US, ZOG would have no option but to fight on. They just can't leave it.

Though, that being said, insurgents armed with firearms can still cause major damage to the regime. They could assassinate VIPs, disrupt the economy and in general force the government officials to hunker down indefinitely.

If they have the support of the local population, an insurgency could fight on for a long time and its not implausible that one point the regime would simply have had enough. They'd let some parts secede and be down with it.

The real obstacle to such events however, is more psychological and social. The modern technological police state is greatly buttressed by the internet and snitch culture. The police and the feds are likely to arrest any insurgents before they could do anything.

The even bigger issue is whether white right iwngers have the balls to do such a thing? They are fat, low testosterone, brainwashed with Christian and boomer propaganda and generally cowardly.

The elites aren't a brave bunch, but neither is their enemy.

All that being said, guns are still good to have. They are best for self defense. If a bunch of feral ''youths'' are invading your house, having a gun is the diffrence between your family living or being raped and murdered. The police certainly isn't going to make it in time.

They have rainbow parades to attend to and twitter trolls to arrest.

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Your rifles can't do anything against tanks and helicopters. A single abrams tank or an apache helicopter can leisurely defeat any number of militias.

Why do you make so many posts like this? It's like your baiting us into explaining how a citizen army could overthrow the US government.

Everytime you post this there are multiple replies breaking down why you're wrong yet you never change your mind. Multiple war college professors have explain in detail how the US military would not be able to suppress a true citizen uprising. This is common sense. Militaries are set up to fight foreign enemies not homegrown insurgents. The government can't use tanks and nukes on it's own people for a variety of reasons. This entire discussion is silly and Biden was just baiting patriots into fed posting.

Why would Biden want to get rid of 'assault weapons' if they aren't affective?

[–]sylla94 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I agree but I'm wondering why

The government can't use tanks and nukes on it's own people for a variety of reasons.

[–]Node 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Because it would rapidly lose any remaining support, and it would be all out war. Cops live in houses in communities. Soldiers have families who live in communities. Blow Biden has family members who live in communities.

How many of them being burned in the streets would it take before the cops and soldiers decided they'd had enough of attacking their own country?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It depends on how passionate the soldiers and police are in carrying out a genocidal war. I would imagine military technology would have greatly advanced in time for an actual civil war and people in the army and police would be mostly non-white and inculcated with genocidal revenge narratives upon White people. They probably will be operating drones from the safety of an air conditioned room hundreds or thousands of miles from the conflict. They aren't going to nuke anyone because it won't be necessary because they have drones.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Multiple war college professors have explain in detail how the US military would not be able to suppress a true citizen uprising

Can you give me a link to such studies?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm really not comfortable posting these things anymore in our current anti white political atmosphere. It can be construed by outsiders as the "'terrorist dissident right' talking about ways to take down the US government!!"

Sharing war college studies about the weaknesses of the US government and the power of domestic insurgent forces can also aid foreign actors that lurk our subs for tips on weaknesses in the US military. As I am only a peaceful political dissident and not a militant dissident I have zero desire at this juncture to help or aide people willing to take down the US government in any way.

There are plenty of books published in the dissident sphere that go through what a civil war would look like. Those books reference some of those studies. You're welcome to support dissidents, buy the books, and read them. It's not really my job to extract and distill all this information for a stranger on the internet.

One very public event that I can talk about (And that I mentioned to you before) is the red team blue team 2002 millennial challenge war game conducted by the US military. Malcolm Gladwell talked about this famously in his book Blink. Here's a link to the wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Long story short the team with less troops, less equipment, and old less techy equipment defeated the team relying on modern equipment and innovation simply because they had more experience and assertiveness. Considering most of those old school implicitly pro white military guys were fired by Obama and are still alive. Well, I'm not really very worried about nukes and f15s.

There are also many reading lists that were given to new recruits in the military years ago that talk about the value of a soldier and a rifle over the power of organized militaries. Again, that is literature distributed and promoted by the US military. That knowledge is out there among the white male US populace. Our strength lies not in our military but in the genetic stock that makes up such a military.

The greatest military weapon in history is fit aggressive intelligent white males working as an ethnic team with purpose. Even a casual reading of the actions of committed individual whites should make any group of people terrified of getting on the wrong side of white racial collectivism. You don't survive this long on the planet and not have the ability to defend yourself from enemies foreign and domestic. It's mind boggling to me how anyone could look at the history of white people and want to fuck with us.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

We don't need tanks, we can topple the government with words. With enough popular support the ruling class either has to concede or start mowing down citizens. The important thing is we'd have to stop letting ourselves get divided by politics and manufactured issues.

And if I'm wrong and that doesn't work, the amount you could fuck up in the US with a hostile population of a decent size is staggering. We're not hardened against a revolt, except maybe DC. There's vital infrastructure that's vulnerable

I don't want a civil war though, I don't think things are much different than 20 years ago, so why now?

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

This is the way. But things ARE different, in the way that the US is on the verge of totalitarianism and the sheeple are ready for it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I have been in several disagreements lately online with people adamantly against free speech, and that is troubling me because I'm the unpopular opinion in a lot of those arguments.

[–]Node 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

When we ceded 'free speech' to the jews after they fomented the free speech riots in the 60s, their purpose was to corrupt and destroy our society by spewing porn and filth in public. (which they have done)

Free speech is generally fine among your own people. You don't want to hand that weapon to your enemies.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I feel like we owe a lot of our right to free speech to Larry Flynt and pornography in general.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Why you gotta troll.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Larry Flynt fought several high-profile first amendment legal battles. What some want today, censorship to ban "hate," isn't much different than the old obscenity laws.

There was a movie, The People vs. Larry Flynt about it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The right to publish smut. Yeah, way to go pushing "free speech" to an extreme nobody needs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's the extremes that need protecting. Nobody cares if you say inoffensive things. And this in turn protects us, theoretically anyways, from being silenced if suddenly what we say is also deemed offensive.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

How's that working out.

[–]astronautrob 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dude is getting roasted everywhere for this, this is hilarious. Anyone that understands urban combat knows that value of small arms. Nukes and jets can't go door to door and unless you're completely leveling a place with no intention of ever having life there again, i.e. nuke the shit out of an area, than you're going door to door. The elites need people to pay taxes, idt they would just nuke a place to hell.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah no need for F-15s. Roadside IEDs can take out Abrams tanks.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Guerillas can be effective at destroying the morale of the enemy but you need an actual military to finish the enemy. Also, Critical race theory gives the intellectual justifications for the genocide of all White people. They won't leave unless they are forced to.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The real obstacle [...] is more psychological and social.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Your rifles can't do anything against tanks and helicopters. A single abrams tank or an apache helicopter can leisurely defeat any number of militias.

In an open battle? No. But guess what: schematics for molotovs, bombs of all sorts, and even the good old Panzerfaust exist online and always will. Any form of civil war would certainly not be pitched conevntional wrfare where the Abrams is (sort of) king; it would be bloody and very personal and a tank or two might be useful in a tenth of the situations any government force would find themselves in, and even in that 10% most of the time those tanks would be vulnerable to IEDs and the like (remember, you don't need to completely destroy a tank to render it useless for its mission: damaging/destroying the gun or tracks renders the tank effectively worthless and provides a chance to scavenge the vehicle or its parts).

These days all a budding revolutionary force would need to fabricate weaponry and equipment is a couple CNC machines and some 3D printers (and the raw materials, of course), and both of those technologies are becoming more advanced and/or cheaper as time progresses.

And this is all assuming any sort of civil war would be a physical war anyway. It would be better and easier to create widespread instability via mass movement and internet activities, and I see that as the most likely outcome. Balkanization or brief anarchy followed by coup d'état would be the likely result.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Panzerfaust

One last gift from uncle Hans for posterity. The Panzerfaust was made from very cheap materials late in the war, almost homemade and was able to effectively take out thousands of Soviet tanks, often well armored ones like the T-34-85. I think the Panzerfaust even today can decimate most APCs and certainly any humvees or military trucks.

Tanks would still be largely immune to them though.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not all engineers work for the military.