That is possible. My point is mainly that it isn&#x27;t going to be the lopsided &quot;civilians vs army&quot; scenario. The military isn&#x27;t a single monolithic entity.<p>As for the utility of civilian being armed, I think you are underestimating the deterrence factor. Yes, they would lose in some situations and are less important in others.<p>Consider the situation from the perspective of the attacking army. Fighting an army is hard enough, but that attack is a lot harder if you also have to defend against the population in general. The counter to that problem is a scorched earth policy that doesn&#x27;t leave a population that could be a threat, but such a policy is risky and can easily turn more people against you.<p>We see this when our army fights in the middle east: when you want to maintain good PR instead of razing cities, small arms and IEDs can be surprisingly effective.