@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.

@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.

@kravietz
A good thing americans have artillary then too. Youve convinced me to buy a 0.5 bmg ;)
@kmic

@freemo @kmic

War is not won with a random howitzer, it's won with money and logistics 🤷

@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