The math doesn’t work, the standing army is a meaningless foot note in the case of a general insurrection. It isn’t even seed corn.
“It took 130,000 US troops to suppress about 10,000 insurgents in Iraq...the German/Europe comparison in WW2 does not hold up.” [mad_as_he$$, post 40]
“[The] … standing army is flea ... only 800,000 with half faggots, REMFs and support units. … could NOT put down a rebellion ... It’s a joke to think so.” [central_va, post 42]
“The math doesn’t work, the standing army is a meaningless foot note in the case of a general insurrection. …” [central_va, post 45]
It’s less than honest to claim irregular forces can prevail over numerically superior regular forces in one case, then discount historically verifiable cases where they did not. That level of analysis is over-generalized. Leaves out too many variables.
Let me get this straight … so central_va saying that Group A (veterans with incomplete {or at most out-of-date} training, leading the unorganized militia and other sympathetic parties who have no training, nor any heavy weapons), are going to prevail over Group B (younger, better-trained people with unlimited access to the complete arsenal of weapons, munitions, and support)? Can’t happen without Group A enduring severe casualties - something Americans are loathe to do.
The remark about “half faggots, REMFs and support” has no weight unless one believes armed conflict is about macho posturing. That is less true every day, as newer systems are imagined, developed, tested, and put into the inventory. Remote sensors, robotic devices, sensor-linked weapons, and comm networks don’t care about the morals or the sex of who operates them, and - thus supported - many can kill the mightiest he-man like that.
An infantryman can’t do much without water, food, ammunition, communications, intel & warning. Interrupt these for only a short time and his effectiveness dwindles to naught. “Support” is indispensable, and it’s where the biggest changes are happening.