zlacker

Maybe a 100 years ago. The government has invested high tens to low hundreds of trillions of our dollars into the military at this point. Guerrilla warfare on peoples own land is almost impossible to snuff out but the people also can't possibly "win".

>>redism+(OP)
... but the tyrants also can’t possibly “win”.

There is little incentive to attempt tyranny when the result can be predicted so easily.

Also, don’t underestimate the power of 100 million people wielding guns. The world has yet to ever witness a force 1/10th as great and well-armed as the American populous.

>>redism+(OP)
The purpose of an armed populace isn't to "win" tactically, it's to win strategically and psychologically. It's basically like a poison pill clause, you want to make totalitarian takeover so unpallatable that every victory is a pyrrhic one. You want to force the occupiers to have to choose between killing your own countrymen or defecting, setting up more of a resistance. All the while, you shine light on all the atrocities.

With a sparsely-armed populace, it's easy for the occupying force to roll through without much conflict or challenging decisions.

Winning occurs through attrition of the occupiers, which, unlike Vietnam, can't just "back out".