Neither point is insurmountable. I'm just playing the role of pragmatist.In 1776 armies comprised people with single shot rifles, pretty much the same stuff the people used to hunt game. In 2015 armies comprise machine guns, TANKS, BOMBERS, FIGHTER JETS, RPGs, chemical weapons of mass destruction, pain machines that literally cook the enemy with microwaves, ... and the people have single shot repeating rifles.Vietnam had china's backing. We would have.... toys.Armed? Against tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets?
Count on your fingers. Consider Vietnam and ME. Insurgencies/belligerent powers are not to be trifled with.
And again, consider the likelihood that in this time much of the rank and file would bolt.
Oh please. In 1776 one third of colonists favored rebellion, one third favored Britain, one third didn't give a rat's ass for either. With some late assistance from France, the former defeated the greatest military force of the time. And you are still assuming no rank-and-file would bolt and bring their "toys" with them.
All this is academic, of course. The ballot box is still the battlefield here, a circumstance we'd best maintain.
The point is that smaller forces have often throughout history defeated the larger and better equipped ones, and it is unlikely American forces would be willing to decimate the country against its own people, as well as weakening itself and leaving the nation open to foreign invasion simply to satisfy the whims of erroneous federal political direction.
We have an insurmountable difference of opinion on this as well, and this has strayed a bit from the subject of the thread.
Fin.
There are ways to fix this mess.