🇳🇱
@kmic
While i agree civials armes, even with artillary, is going to have limited effect it isnt nothing. We are talking the same weapons as a military has remeber, at least on the infantry side.
I garuntee you 100 million people with military riflea are going to be an added deterrant to any invasion. Personally i have no issue giving civilians tanks either by the way.
@kravietz
Its both of course. The argument that more weapons does nothing to add weight to one side of the scale of anykind seems absurd.
What i also find telling is reducing investment in weaponry after ww1 was a huge thing and ultimate exactly the resaon why hitler had no troubke sweeping through europe.
Comparing 3rd world countries with much smaller populations that happened to be conquered by a superior armes force is a weak counterpoint in my eyes
@kmic
> add weight to one side of the scale of anykind seems absurd
I can't speak for people who plan offensives on other countries but in historic operations like Iraq insurgence - and civilians with arms are equal to insurgence - was never taken into account. The operations planned for quick conquer of the regular armed countries - which was usually successful, and only then faced insurgence and obviously couldn't back off, only engage.
In 1st Chechen war Russia started an infamous siege of Grozny in 1993 by simply sending a column of tanks to the town. I don't know what they were thinking (legend is that it was Grachov's birthday) but because they didn't send any infantry cover, Chechens just decimated them with RPG firing from above.
After this failure Russia changed tactic: each offensive on a town started with heavy artillery shelling & air bombing. Then tanks & infantry, killing who was left.
@freemo @kmic
Experience of conquer of highly militarized countries (like Chechnya) indicate that the main outcome is high death toll among civilians because the invader just switches to more indiscriminate weapons like artillery or barrel bombs.