(02-04-2024, 11:08 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote:

(02-04-2024, 06:22 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: I wasn't aware I was instigating a pissing contest about service. 

The point on the table was how many of the 2.63 million domestically stationed US military it would require to quell an armed domestic terrorist threat  - and how many would desert rather than follow orders to protect one set of Americans from another. 

You claim your speculation on that is better informed than mine because you served and I did not.
That's fair. 
Makes perfect sense. 

So what is your more insightful speculation? 

If one group of Americans was actively carrying out violence on another group of Americans, would the might of the US military, despite the number of officers and enlisted grappling with a moral predicament, be enough to rapidly and efficiently gain control of the situation? 

For my highlighted point; I wasn't directing this at anyone in particular. It's a pet peeve of mine in general. 

As to your bolded point, the numbers say yes, but large numbers don't always equal effective action. 

Sadly, we saw this happen after George Floyd and other black Americans were killed when blm and others took to the streets and literally terrorized people by destroying property, riding through neighborhoods screaming over bullhorns, doxxing people with whom they didn't agree, etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong but And don't tell me that was not domestic terrorism.

 I don't recall one instance of the National Guard being deployed to quell the violence.

The states were activated to protect D.C. in the summer of 2020. There was little violence as a result, so they weren't deployed to quell but likely kept order in the streets. Had they been used other times it's as likely those riots would've been subdued also. Of course then it would've played out like Kent State because #orangemanbad.

---