🇳🇱
@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.
