/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>477452
I disagree that the operation of modern rifles and handguns is too much for the average prole–I also argue the need to train and educate the proletariat on defense as well as the management of it's own affairs. To this end, militia training should be a component of standard education. The maintenance of the AK was easy enough to understand so something like an AR-18, CETME model L, or Robinson Armament XCR-L would be suitable to the task in western counties. A simplified AR patterned rifle is debatable as it needs a lot of fuckery with the gas rings, has a retarded charging handle placement, and is DI so it shits where it eats and is too gassy when suppressed (I think that suppressors should be integrated and standard in militia guns to improve safety). I question the need for handguns in a militia but anyone would be serviced well with any Glock clone since this prevents burns and injury from revolver barrel cylinder gaps.

"light armor" has largely won the day so good hits are required for anything really unless an enemy military is using fake plates in their carriers. Seems to me that 5.56 is the bare minimum if you expect to be landing your hits or 30-06 for any hope to penetrate level IV armor. I'm not well versed in this though so please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think something innovative would be to have a militia done program since this have proven their effectiveness in the Russian SMO. Small cheap rockets for armor might also be necessary like what the Palestinians deploy. I think artillery training is often overlooked in militias for small arms. State funded militia should have all of this and more.

A huge advantage to a militia would also be supplying NODS if it is in the budget: at least some cheap thermals so you don't get fucked by camofag larpers.

Venezuela has set the obvious standard with civilian militias, having defeated multiple coup attempts by the US now.

>>477453
>I disagree that the operation of modern rifles
Of course proles can operate an assault rifle like an AK or a AR. The problem is everything else related to that.

Armies use these weapons in medium range assault squadrons that train for complex tactics that rely on all sorts of flanking and breaching moves, accurate timing and a disciplined command structure with strategical battle field intel and high end military communication networks. For political reasons we want to avoid creating something like an officer strata in the general society that commands squadrons in people's militias. Because most of the time will be peace-time, and people just go to militia training once a month. People won't show up for that if somebody barks commands at them, people dislike getting ordered around.

Most people aren't particularly interested in military tactics and will not commit any brain-space to that. It has to be simple and training must be at least a little bit fun. With those constrains, a bolt-action rifle is superior because it has better range/precision and can fire much more powerful rounds. That lends it self to harassment tactics that only require familiarity with the terrain but no militaristic command and control trappings. Consider that people going out to take random potshots means that for the opponent the battle field turns into random chaos. Especially with the advent of AI data processing, those will be able to outguess orderly military formations, but will not do much against stochastic attacks from proles doing random raids.

Assault rifles use to much ammo, supplying a large part of the population with enough bullets to train and fight, will be too much for a reasonable defense budget. Maybe you don't quite grasp the intention, the goal is to use rocket-assist 20mill auto-canon ammunition for a comically overpowered shoulder-cannon that can btfo light tanks. You can forget wearable armor, even if you could stop it, it still would have too much kinetic energy. Keep in mind the effects of large numbers. If half of the armed population goes out maybe 2 or 3 times during an entire war and hits something 3% of the time, that's enough to decimate multiple large armies.

>I question the need for handguns in a militia but anyone would be serviced well with any Glock clone since this prevents burns and injury from revolver barrel cylinder gaps.
Yeah i looked at pistols, too expensive and too un-reliable when un-maintained. Also most revolvers can use low noise ammo without modification. Pistols would have to be re-designed to take low noise ammo. Gas-burns is a non-issue with low noise ammo because those trap most of the hot combustion vapors inside the projectile. That's how they do the low noise part.

>I think something innovative would be to have a militia done program since this have proven their effectiveness in the Russian SMO. Small cheap rockets for armor might also be necessary like what the Palestinians deploy. I think artillery training is often overlooked in militias for small arms. State funded militia should have all of this and more.
This sounds reasonable. Artillery is the king of the battlefield indeed, but only doable if your country has enough heavy industry and resources. Russia can spam unlimited artillery but many other places can't. So that's a thing that depends on the local conditions. Heavy weapons can be taken out by professional military deep strike missile command, the militia doesn't have to deal with those.

>A huge advantage to a militia would also be supplying NODS if it is in the budget: at least some cheap thermals so you don't get fucked by camofag larpers.
i'm thinking that rc quad copters are better for scouting, those could have IR cameras (assuming that's what you mean with "thermals")

>>477456
>Venezuela has set the obvious standard with civilian militias, having defeated multiple coup attempts by the US now.
Good point.
We can add coup proofing to the list of upside.

>>477457
>assault rifles use to much ammo.
I will have to disagree with you. The place of small arms for a militia using guerilla tactics would be largely defensive with their use being limited to harassment and fire to cover retreat. Anyone can understand that shooting a stream of bullets in a direction is to prevent people from going there.
When applied to a defensive war where the primary tactic is to retreat, one of the best "primary weapons" to inflict casualties on an enemy will be small activated explosives and other such traps. Hopefully a socialist state wouldn't find itself in such a dire situation. In the case of small scale counterrevolution, intermediate caliber ammo for small arms can be easily replenished after skirmishes since the defending state should have supply line advantage.
I doubt the capability of the average militia man to be able to accurately shoot long range anti-material rifles. This would require specialization as most people are averse to even small caliber recoil at first and it takes a lot of reps to clean up a flinch response. Accordingly, shooting principles can be trained easily enough with aging ammunition and supplemented with small caliber rimfire conversion training kits in any competent self sufficient state.
>artillery
Small forces like the Taliban have proven the effectiveness of mobile artillery
>low noise revolver
look I like the nagant as much as the next man but the energy required to close the cylinder gap is over 10 pounds on the trigger. This is dummy heavy and will throw your shots off. It's sad but in fact, I don't think any double action would be suitable for militia use unless it has a retarded wwi style pistol brace or something: extra crap to carry around. For partisan assassinations of anti proletariat leaders, a .22 ruger style suppressed pistol has been proven by mossad to be effective but this is the only application imo

Did you think the Gazans just sit there as cattle for the slaughter as your grand theories of society must dictate? Fuck no. They're going to shoot back. Given a civilian a gun and a motive and he or she becomes a killer just like a soldier. There is no "special rite" which gives you permission to kill and makes the inferiors cattle. Aristocracies think that way, but no one is going to just sit there to be traded like slaves if they have any option, or if there is literally no option. That is the case for the Gazans - submission to the enemy is not an option when the enemy desires unlimited and maximal torture, not just death. That's what Israel is, and all it can ever be. There is no negotiating with such an enemy, a state founded by sadistic gangsters as many such projects are. That explains the aristocratic mindset of Israel - they insist on such infantilism because they're just gangsters, and not even particularly successful ones. The only thing they do is pester the US and then treat Americans like dogs, because of course they would.

If you thought about war with any seriousness, war has nothing to do with the appearance and performance of it. Israel is learning what a complete "show war" strategy does. IDF morale is garbage and the world despises them. They're not going to "lose" to dug-in militias in occupied territory, but the Gazans will fight because they have no other way.

I've seen so many stupid lib armchair warlords thinking that they can plan wars to get all of the little people killed, while they're the Great Planners who are obviously necessary. They're used to that sort of war. I don't have to be a skilled soldier to smell that bullshit, but then, everything that goes on does not resemble these narratives they like to tell the people. I get the sense that someone wants to fuck Netanyahu, which is good because Netanyahu is a fucking sadistic gremlin and should have been put down like a dog a long time ago. He's going to get fucked by his own people anyway.

Basic firearms training, and the concept of a peoples' militia, is not a new concept. It is fairly standard for human societies for the entire male population to be war-capable when called upon, given a sufficient cause to fight for. This doesn't involve any qualifiers about ability or who is a "real warrior" - that is aristocratic horseshit that has always been cancerous to fighting real war. It turns out that anyone with a gun is about as effective at killing things as the next person, and defenders always have advantages in war. The idea that "offense wins wars" is a Kraut cope. In every modern war, the defending nation has the upper hand, then prepares the counter-attack which no aggressor can fully prepare for. All of the Axis aggressors were repulsed from the first great power they confronted, and faced difficulty with their initial wars of aggression. The Americans waging offensive wars "far, far away" after the second world war were similarly at a disadvantage. There is a political and social component to war that the fetish for institutions always overlooks, because institutions must do this for their theories of society to work and their rule to continue. Without it, the only strategy in wars is total and unrestricted elimination of the enemy, which is great if you can do it, but enemies have a habit of refusing to die when you say the word. Aristocrats are used to torturing their own people and think war is like that, because in their experience, that is the real war they wage.

All of this is to say, it is trivial to familiarize people with the nature of war and how to hold a gun. By that metric, nearly every adult in America is a potential militia member, and those who aren't have been specifically marked and degraded. The only way to remove someone from the militia is to pronounce them an enemy of the people and treat them accordingly - as slaves. Free societies do not indulge in the Germanic military fetish. This also describes the IDF - conscript army, everyone is expected to fight. The problem for the IDF is that they're horribly outnumbered, and they put their faith in the tech and belief in racial superiority. The great idea of the Iranians is that they figured out how to make the most of militia fighters given some simple weapons and tactical knowledge of how to break the preferred MO of the imperial armies. As long as arms can be deployed and Israel is afraid to attack Hezbollah and the greater Muslim world, there's not a whole lot they can do without begging the US to come back with ground troops.

If you want to know what the plan for the US in Palestine is - they're done with Israel as-is, sick of how annoying they are, and they can work with the Muslims now. In 1948, that was not an option, and the Cold War era allowed Arab/Iranian leaders to play the great powers off each other (and the great powers would play them), which made it impossible to do away with Israel. For 30 years, Israel has been a sore spot for the empire, and has become incredibly obnoxious, holding a knife at the throat of its "allies" to demand sacrifice. I wouldn't be surprise if deals were cut with Iran, or will be soon, reshuffling the middle east to get around the annoyance of the Zionist Entity.

This of course is for the Empire, rather than "the US", which will very soon no longer be a serious consideration. The US is failing and so the occupied parts of the world are taking this opportunity to grab some of their stuff back, but the Empire isn't going anywhere. It's global now.

>>477462
lol is this haz or eugene? I largely agree doe because Israel will get the Hong Kong treatment when the US empire falls. Cucks like Erdogan won't take advantage though

>>477461
>I will have to disagree with you. The place of small arms for a militia using guerilla tactics would be largely defensive with their use being limited to harassment and fire to cover retreat. Anyone can understand that shooting a stream of bullets in a direction is to prevent people from going there.
You are making 2 assumptions. 1 The militia forces should confront the military that attacks. 2 Combat for territory.
My assumption are that a militia cannot confront a trained military, not even in a defensive role, and it can't hold territory or deny access. The only thing a militia can do is harass a military force, pick off troops and destroy equipment, while the military force moves. Once the military force entrenches, they become targets for long range missile/drone forces.
>When applied to a defensive war where the primary tactic is to retreat, one of the best "primary weapons" to inflict casualties on an enemy will be small activated explosives and other such traps. Hopefully a socialist state wouldn't find itself in such a dire situation. In the case of small scale counterrevolution, intermediate caliber ammo for small arms can be easily replenished after skirmishes since the defending state should have supply line advantage.
The first priority has to be to minimize your own casualties, so retreating to draw enemy forces into traps is a decent strategy. Not just for dire situations.
>I doubt the capability of the average militia man to be able to accurately shoot long range anti-material rifles. This would require specialization as most people are averse to even small caliber recoil at first and it takes a lot of reps to clean up a flinch response. Accordingly, shooting principles can be trained easily enough with aging ammunition and supplemented with small caliber rimfire conversion training kits in any competent self sufficient state.
Yes in Socialist states where the masses are armed and represent the people's fist. People have to train how to use their weapons, including learning not to flinch because of recoil. The heavy anti-material rifle i have in mind gets most of it's kinetic energy from a rocket motor inside the round, so the person shooting the rifle is not going to get too much of a jolt, because the gun-power-cartridge will only contribute 30% of the rounds momentum, the rest comes from the solid fuel rocketmotor-cartridge.
But aside from all of that, you have to understand the mental aspect. The general population is not willing to engage professional soldiers with an assault rifle at medium range. Most people don't have the necessary "Rambo sensibilities" to do that. But a great number probably would be willing to use a massive rifle from a longer range.

Also consider the psychological warfare aspect. Imagine you are a sick fuck that signs up for a capitalist imperialist war because you want an excuse to murder and terrorize people in foreign lands, living out gore-fantasies or something like that. And then when you arrive, the vulnerable part of the population has vanished into hidden and hardened bunkers denying you access to easy victims. And to make matters worse the other part of the population is poking at you from long range, with ridiculously over-powered weapons. Once you have seen some of your murder-adventure-buddies burst into splatter because a supersonic rocket-propelled autocannon-round punched through their body, inducing a hydrodynamic shock-wave that liquefied half their body, the idea of war as an adventure where you can dominate an terrorize powerless people will have been exhaustively cured. You can't get that effect with assault rifles.

I do grasp that, from the point of view of conventional warfare doctrine, having a huge infantrie force that is entirely made up of very mediocre snipers using large meme-guns, seems unreasonable. But historically capitalist countries have often invaded socialist countries to destroy the socialist governments, break large socialist countries into smaller ones and install extractive vassal regimes in place. The point of that was to exploit the people and steal their resources. If that were to happen and the population has a fucktonne of these large meme-guns, every vassel they try to install will easily get assasinated. The other method of subjugation is divide and conquer civil-war, but that's not going to work if everybody is camping in hideouts as a sniper. Even the most powerfull empire will not be able to swallow such a spikey hedgehog, and they might decide not to try in the first place.

There are peace time considerations as well. If we arm basically the entire population, you can to an extend screan out unstable head-cases that will go on a killing-spree once handed a firearm. But that won't be 100%. The onese that slip through, could kill many people with an assault rifle, but with a giant anti-material gun, that would become much harder.

>Small forces like the Taliban have proven the effectiveness of mobile artillery
Interesting, can you elaborate how mobile artillery would fit into the context of a socialist people's millitia ?
Begin with peace time, where is that mobile artilliery stored, who controles access, who trains on this ? And then for war time, how do you manage ammo supply and maintenance.
My understanding of artillery comes from examples in wars. And the most effective use has been building/deploying massive quantities to make it rain heavy steal, that shatters enemy forces and everything around them.

>>477474
>militia forces cannot confront a trained army
I know the dire situation I am talking about is full scale invasion of a socialist country whereas I contend that a militia is quite capable of confronting small terrorist cells as observed in Venezuela with the failure of Operation Gideon. I agree with you that retreat is the main tool of militia men against a traditional army.
>rocket motor round
gyrojet type ammo has not seen success in field tests. They are abysmally inaccurate because they have such a great dwell-time: they're too slow to keep on target. I think you distrust the proletariat too much which is why you don't want to give them high capacity fully automatic weapons. This is a liberal brain worm: a socialist state should not disarm it's own populace but instead eliminate the weaknesses of soft targets such as schools. Arm everybody and genocide troony incels and there will be no more shootings: this comes in the form of compulsory summer camps for children where you have to socialize
>where is artillery stored
same as it is now in the US with the national guard except with expanded access to all citizens with tours demos and trainings at public events like farmers markets

>>477461
>look I like the nagant as much as the next man but the energy required to close the cylinder gap is over 10 pounds on the trigger. This is dummy heavy and will throw your shots off. It's sad but in fact, I don't think any double action would be suitable for militia use unless it has a retarded wwi style pistol brace or something: extra crap to carry around. For partisan assassinations of anti proletariat leaders, a .22 ruger style suppressed pistol has been proven by mossad to be effective but this is the only application imo
No i didn't mean the nagant with a silencer. I mean silent ammo like the Soviet PSS pistol
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=dXV9xMUofwk

The alteration i would make to the silent ammo in the PSS is to make it case-less. Put the gunpowder charge and the telescoping piston inside the rear of a longish bullet instead of a separate casing. You can use that in any revolver that fits diameter-wise. With the added bonus that you don't have to eject casings.

>>477476
>gyrojet type ammo has not seen success in field tests. They are abysmally inaccurate because they have such a great dwell-time: they're too slow to keep on target.
A gyrojet is a more efficient variation of a recoilless gun (Bazooka). It's main problem is that the initial muzzle velocity is too slow. Making it ineffective at close range as well as giving it a huge spread pattern, or like you said "abysmally inaccurate"

What i was proposing is different, sometimes it's called a Bolter. It uses bullets that get fired like normal with a gunpowder charge expanding combustion gases inside the barrel to accelerate the bullet out of the barrel. And then a additional rocket-motor kicks in to continue accelerating the bullet once it leaves the barrel.

These have high muzzle velocity and great accuracy. The rocket motor also means that you can drive the bullet extremely hard without giving the rifle bone-shattering recoil.

>>477479
ok so then my original point stands from a couple replies ago that you won't get an average joe to shoot that sort of projectile. If it's carrying all the extra fuel, it may be less recoil than a traditional projectile at that velocity but the amount of initial powder to spin that shit out of the barrel will have more recoil than an assault weapon cartridge like 5.56 nato. Anything larger than a 140 grain projectile is going to be too much let alone a likely unreliable sci-fi cartridge dreamed up for a boardgame. I think you have some good ideas bro but I don't think you have any practical experience. If you can, go out shooting and you'll see just how much more handy and reliable real world rifles are

>>477476
>I think you distrust the proletariat too much which is why you don't want to give them high capacity fully automatic weapons. This is a liberal brain worm: a socialist state should not disarm it's own populace but instead eliminate the weaknesses of soft targets such as schools.
I agree that once we arm large parts of the population we have to improve clothing items and various other objects to have bullet-proof characteristics to reduce "the weaknesses of soft targets" as you called it.

I think the school shootings in the US are largely caused by capitalism degenerating the social fabric of society. My intuition is that socialism would likely not have that problem. However i still think socialism won't automatically cure all mental diseases and you'd still get some shootings. And for those cases it helps when the available weapons aren't bullet hoses. But my main objection is that it would be too expensive to produce enough ammo for everybody to train on assault rifles.

But you are not wrong, i do have sort of a prejudice against assault-rifles. I think they're kind-off aristocratic weapons. Akin to swords and bows during the medieval times. You have to train really hard to get any good at fighting with a sword or a bow. And you have to train really hard to get good at using fully automatic weapons. Most proles can't dedicate the time and resources towards mastery of a weapon like the warrior cast in a feudal society. What further raises my skepticism about assault weapons is that the people in the "gun-enthusiast spaces", all swear that assault weapons need to have lots of extra, complicated gadgets mounted to it. That makes it completely unusable as the people's weapon. We're not going to be able to pull that off at scale, these gadgets aren't really mass-producible. I consider simple weapons like revolvers, bolt-action rifles and shotguns to be prole-weapons because they don't have the aristocratic learning curve. Also look at the prices, with a few exceptions like the AK-47 or the AR-15, assault weapons are really expensive. The Soviets being able to pull off affordable, reliable and capable assault weapons, is more a testament to their engineering prowess than the weapon-type being inherently suitable as the firearm of the masses.

Now the political aspect. One of the reasons for arming the population is to incentivize people in high positions to act on behalf of the population. A really high powered rifle can btfo armored limousines and can reach helicopters on top of sky scrapers. Those assault rifles can't touch either of those, so they don't serve much purpose as a political incentive anymore.

>>477482
>ok so then my original point stands from a couple replies ago that you won't get an average joe to shoot that sort of projectile. If it's carrying all the extra fuel, it may be less recoil than a traditional projectile at that velocity but the amount of initial powder to spin that shit out of the barrel will have more recoil than an assault weapon cartridge like 5.56 nato
>Anything larger than a 140 grain projectile is going to be too much
But i've seen youtube videos of tiny women with spaghetti arms shoot enormous elephant hunting rifles, so what gives? I wonder if changing the recoil profile from a short spike to a more spread out curve makes it more palatable. We could add a simple air-friction dampener into the stock and go for a huge muzzle break that exploits Bernoulli's principle to reduce recoil by using scavenged waste energy. It would look like the nose of a hammerhead shark tho.
>let alone a likely unreliable sci-fi cartridge dreamed up for a boardgame.
I admit i haven't found a real world example of a Bolter, and yes it was dreamed up for the WH40k board-game. But adding a solid-fuel-motor is not really high-tech or scifi. Basic solid fuel rocket-motors were invented in the 18-hundreds. Those can be reliably triggered with simple shatter-glass-fuses using a chemical reaction timer. Basically the initial kick of the round being fired breaks a small glass container, releasing 2 chemicals that when mixed ignites the solid-fuel-motor. The speed of that Chemical reaction can be tuned like the speed of a old-school fuse-wire. Even in mass production runs the variation on those will be small and the rocket-motor will trigger within tight tolerances. If that doesn't satisfy you, we'll stick a magnet at the end of the barrel and trigger with a Hal-sensor, that'll get the variation down to a few nano seconds.

>I think you have some good ideas bro
thanks
>I don't think you have any practical experience.
Yeah that's true, but firearm permits are way to expensive where i live. That's a rich men's hobby.

>>477485
those fags pay thousands to boers to shoot on their land with their fag guns hopping out of their humvees with 20 pound rifles. This will never be practical for a militia. Mobility mobility mobility small arms should be exactly that with emphasis in being capable of reaching out practical distances: this could mean sub guns for city slickers but here in the country, someone needs 1-500 yards easily and that's where 5.56 comes in. Ammo weight is also a factor. I wish I could take you shooting out here in the west. it's really beautiful even in Jan out here in the desert.

It's funny how people think that "military training" is some arcane science accessible only to a few very powerful people, based on nothing really. The most effective armies in history were those that could mobilize a shit ton on men and machinery, usually because they had to and couldn't afford the usual bullshit stories that are told about it.

Everyone who is trained filters to the general population, and the basic methods of fighting are known enough - they're designed to be simple enough that it's impossible for a grunt to fail if they read the fucking manual. The real heart of the matter is that war implies a singular victor to be meaningfully war, and the victor of the present war is the institution against the people. It can only secure this victory through forced ignorance and degradation of the conditions of the people, and that is the war constantly fought - to degrade, denude, and prohibit any iota of independent action which is the objective of the present war. There wouldn't be a "civil war" here except by the choice of aristocracy to make one. It can end immediately if the bastards cease doing this, but if that ends, eugenics ends. The project ends, with the people remembering what was done to them and no violent recapitulation of the creed working to cow people into submission. It would then become the obligation of everyone not in the club to exterminate those in the club, by whatever means are suitable. There is no forgiving eugenics and what it did to us, and so the war will continue, absent any particular reason why this should happen.

What is really at work isn't "training" or some special knowledge, but a simple reality that wars have one victor, and an arranged "struggle" with preplanned outcomes is never stable, nor something that resolves with the victor unchanged and whole. The damned will either survive, or a new damned will appear for the same reasons that the old damned came to exist, and inherit the same struggle. Aristocracy cannot change under any circumstances, and it would be quite impossible for humans to abandon aristocracy in total. The closest they ever got was a genuine natural aristocracy, which will lose faith in its status within a generation and undermines its claim from the outset. For the damned, there is no reconciliation with aristocracy, or even "making a new aristocracy" in their own image. Were the damned ever to truly win this battle, they would probably see the situation, see humanity is a failed project in total, and discourage the continuation of social life, as this is the only way to mitigate humanity's clear desire to continue this war for no real reason. This would probably lead the damned to impose depopulation worse than anything the eugenists did, and they would not use the excuse that it's for "the greater good". It would simply be the last word on what humans really were - that humans chose this war because they simply hate the weak and decided that ruling over a dumpster fire was preferable to any other aim they might possess. If people never really speak to each other, and their remaining interactions are rightly contemptuous of the conspiracy of the human race, there will be an end to war, and an end to most of our problems. While it would be possible to do this scaled to present population levels or higher, there would immediately be an end to a cult of life which treats human existence as some resource to harvest like cattle. It would be necessary to discourage new life to prevent it from becoming a tool of the aristocratic enemy, and since the revanchist aristocrats have always found fools and enablers to restore the cycle, the only course of action will be a grim existence - forever. I would expect that there would be no more than a few million humans remaining on Earth, all of them selected specifically to maintain this mission, and the living will envy the dead. But, there will finally be peace, and we can have what we wanted from the start. Anything less is abdicating what would be necessary to bring an end to this cycle of war and the endemic rot of humanity. Those who live will mostly persist specifically so that no aristocratic enemy can be restored.
Long, long after this time, during the long peace, there may be another way. So long as aristocracy exists, it will always destroy on sight anything that would end its cycle. The damned of the Earth would not make claims to be "the best" or possess any virtue. They would all be servants of the world to defeat a menace to the world and everyone in it, and this would be a far happier life than anything we're going to know in this society. Today, that world is only possible as a fleeting fantasy, and those who see it will have to fade from society. The world where humans got along in some imagined cooperative venture, even an imperfect one, is now an impossibility. Humans selected for their core values of avarice for too long, and the conditions of cooperation in nations only served to facilitate the rise of the malevolent in those nations, while the counter-argument of decency was laughed out of existence. It really is that simple.

Anyway what this has to do with war is that the people here are not thinking of anything that really motivates this, or any way these things are fought. They're obsessed with a projected form of "strength" and internalize it, and this is exactly what the current rulers want their slaves to think - to internalize eugenics and defeat themselves before any battle is necessary, and then use this as a pretext to hold a knife at the throat of everyone to extract more torture, more sweat. It's not in pursuit of any productive goal. Aristocracy does not think like that. All of the wars since 1913 have been wars of imperial choice, wholly unnecessary and waged against people who have bent over backwards to tolerate the intolerable.

>>477486
Can you explain why mobility is important for a people's militia. If there's war and people go on a raid to harass a nearby hostile military formation, they wouldn't have to travel a great distance. Plus there are many pictures of these lets call em "fighter groups in the middle east region" that carry absolutely huge rifles. Pic related, looks like something originally intended to be mounted on a vehicle or something. They seem to manage hauling that stuff around somehow.

Maybe there is a design trick and these are lighter than they appear, if you make the barrel really long, you don't need as much barrel pressure, because a long barrel extracts more energy from the same gunpowder charge. Plus a long barrel has more cooling. Less pressure and less heat means less material strength is needed, and potentially weight.