alt Hacker NewsThe US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded [1]. The US has one of the highest per capita of gun ownership and less than a million soldiers on US soil [2] [3]. Federal supremacy is based on the concept of the US military winning a conflict when they haven't won one since WW2. Force projection via military hardware and popping into Venezuela to extract its leader is a far different proposition than urban combat where your home and family is on the same soil.
I very much hope civil war is unlikely, but the federal government is vastly undermanned if a conflict occurs on US soil.
(have four siblings who have decades in combined military tours across all service branches except the coast guard, and I leverage them as a resource collectively in these matters)
[1] https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2016-10/costs-war-numbers
[2] https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-troops-are-in-the-us-m...
[3] https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-...
Replies
In what world are Iraq / Afghanistan good "comps" for the US military's performance in a civil war? Those countries had a virtually endless supply of young men who wanted to die for their cause, due to religious fanaticism, and were willing to do anything to make that happen. Who is going to fulfill that role in this hypothetical civil war? The US military was also faced with 10,000 km long supply lines and extremely rugged terrain where no one had any local knowledge.
> The US military spent $4T-$6T in Iraq and Afghanistan, losing ~7k soldiers and ~52k wounded
Denmark and the UK (to mention just two countries) also lost men fighting alongside America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Look how they are being repaid.
Here is a rather sobering video from a British perspective: The Prime Minister responding to JD Vance by simply reading out in Parliament, the names of British soldiers who died supporting American operations.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pm-honours-uk-troops-killed-123537...