Civilians vs The Government

[ElectEngr]

This came to mind, but it only worked when the military came over to the people...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution

Later,
ElectEngr

 

[funinspace]

In answer to this very question a while back, I looked through history and found something very important:

At no time since the advent of what we would consider "modern" military power -- that is, in the years since the advent of military aviation and mechanized warfare -- has it been possible for an armed civilian uprising to prevail against its government without the support of the country's military.

That's not to say that revolutions don't happen, or that governments don't get overthrown, or that popular revolts cannot prevail. It is simply that a popular revolt cannot prevail unless it is popular with the state's armed forces as well. This, is necessarily, requires a mutiny on a massive scale, usually involving one or more popular generals defecting to the side of the revolutionaries and taking a huge chunk of the army with him.

Once the military switches sides, THAT'S when things become interesting.

The example that really solidified this is the Syrian Civil War. A lot of people forget that Syria has had small scale uprisings before, most of which were quickly and decisively crushed by the Assad government before their feet even hit the ground. But this case was different: some portion of the Syrian military had already joined the uprising earlier in the spring, and by September the Free Syrian Army basically had a core group made up of military deserters and Islamist militia veterans.

To compare with America's situation: imagine if two of the top ranking generals of the U.S. Marine Corps threw their support behind Black Lives Matter and encouraged every black soldier under their command to do the same. In a single day, five thousand soldiers abscond from their bases with fifty trucks, eighty Humvees, twenty M1A3 main battle tanks, and clean out the armories of their bases, including an impressive number of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. When three days later a black teenager is shot in the face while sitting on a swingset in a public park (the officer claims he "reached for his waistband" but no weapon is found), suddenly BLM shows up in the middle of the I-90 with a pair of tanks, a hundred trained Marines with assault rifles and anti-aircraft missiles and announces, "The Kennedy Expressway will remain closed until Officer Dickface is fired and prosecuted for murder."

So is MI6 going to set up an international command post in Toronto Canada to support these new American rebels? Will weapons and mercenaries poor in from all parts of the globe to help the fight move forward? Who would fear who's military retribution, Canada or the USA? Would Mexican drug cartels destabilize the southwestern US?

Sure, if El Cheato tried to grab the whole 18-wheeler of Doritos at once, a sharp and capable rebellion could easily ensue. However, what it if came more slowly in baby steps. What if the early confrontations weren't simply 'shoot to kill' on the mobs? Venezuela or Turkey could be another example of encroachment of dictatorship and a withering of democratic governance.

 

[Malintent]

The idea of an unorganized citizenry rising up to meet a professional army is a sweet fantasy and we all know how it's going to end.

The idea of opposing in numbers, depends on a few things. The first is the citizenry's willingness to be killed or maimed in large numbers, and the second is the government's ability to withstand the backlash of killing and maiming large numbers of citizens. Neither is a known quantity, but let's face facts. In the US, military service is not that great a deal when compared to civilian life. There's no reason to think US soldiers would be all that keen about firing into crowds of people who speak the same language.

Even the Red Chinese Army failed in it's first attempt to take Tiananmen Square. The first column turned back. It was probably a bleak night in their barracks.

Our government would probably be more concerned with the loss of tax revenue from Manhattan.

agree... It's not that NYC contains "better" soldiers than the military, or that it is a pure numbers game... it is that the military would never fire upon the masses for any reason Trump can possibly provide... (it would take the force of an alien invasion or other such insanely unlikely event) and New Yorkers would, certainly, fire upon the military that fails to meet these expectations...and that is just the North East... imagine the bloodshed the South would engage in to repel an illegal federal reach for control.

No sane military professional would get wrapped up in this... the commanding officer giving the order might well be the very first (and hopefully last) casualty.

 

[Malintent]

I'm with the OP 100%. It'd be a massacre.
... call in a missile strike and that's the end of that.

well, of course... the premise was that the goal was to control, not eliminate. Such control will be impossible. The only "win" for the military would be nuking every major city... and then what has the military "won", a wasteland with no ability to generate revenue, food, gas, or anything at all?

This thread was inspired by a comment that had nothing to do with our military's ability to destroy the country, but how impossible it would be to control the people through military force.

 

[Malintent]

I also see a lot of people making comments about a populace "revolt"... which is not the topic of the OP... the topic was if our military marched into our major cities to issue military law, with no orders to burn the entire city down, then their job would be impossible, and they would all eventually be shot to death.

If you wish to make the scenario that the military has absolutely no rules of engagement, and it was all out war against the populace, then sure, the US would simply be gone. The citizenry would all be dead... and then years later ,when all the canned food ran out, everyone left standing would be dead too.

 

[bilby]

I also see a lot of people making comments about a populace "revolt"... which is not the topic of the OP... the topic was if our military marched into our major cities to issue military law, with no orders to burn the entire city down, then their job would be impossible, and they would all eventually be shot to death.

If you wish to make the scenario that the military has absolutely no rules of engagement, and it was all out war against the populace, then sure, the US would simply be gone. The citizenry would all be dead... and then years later ,when all the canned food ran out, everyone left standing would be dead too.

I don't think so. The military would be portrayed as (and seen by most of the citizens as) merely reinforcement for the police (who might be disbanded under the pretext of being incapable of maintaining order, or merely placed under military control).

Sure, a handful of upset locals might start shooting soldiers (and/or cops); but the vast majority of people would condemn such opposition to the rule of law, uncaring or disinterested in the constitutionality of the whole situation.

If you want to know how it would play out, if a militarised police force was opposed by a minority of citizens, but supported by the majority (who prefer deference over resistance, however just or unjust the authorities might be), then you need look no further than the inner city black ghettos of major US cities today - regardless of the right or wrong of the situation (please feel free to discuss whether BLM is or is not justified on one of the myriad other threads - this thread is about strategic and tactical ideas, not the moral basis for the causes the participants support or oppose), the fact is that a pro-constitutional popular movement with access to guns would be no more effective at limiting the authority of the army in our hypothetical, than the BLM movement today is at limiting the authority of the police.

Soldiers don't want to shoot civilians, for sure. But when push comes to shove, civilians don't want to kill soldiers, either. And most people are perfectly willing to bow to authority; they think they are not, but history shows that they actually are.

 

[Malintent]

I also see a lot of people making comments about a populace "revolt"... which is not the topic of the OP... the topic was if our military marched into our major cities to issue military law, with no orders to burn the entire city down, then their job would be impossible, and they would all eventually be shot to death.

If you wish to make the scenario that the military has absolutely no rules of engagement, and it was all out war against the populace, then sure, the US would simply be gone. The citizenry would all be dead... and then years later ,when all the canned food ran out, everyone left standing would be dead too.

I don't think so. The military would be portrayed as (and seen by most of the citizens as) merely reinforcement for the police (who might be disbanded under the pretext of being incapable of maintaining order, or merely placed under military control).

Sure, a handful of upset locals might start shooting soldiers (and/or cops); but the vast majority of people would condemn such opposition to the rule of law, uncaring or disinterested in the constitutionality of the whole situation.

If you want to know how it would play out, if a militarised police force was opposed by a minority of citizens, but supported by the majority (who prefer deference over resistance, however just or unjust the authorities might be), then you need look no further than the inner city black ghettos of major US cities today - regardless of the right or wrong of the situation (please feel free to discuss whether BLM is or is not justified on one of the myriad other threads - this thread is about strategic and tactical ideas, not the moral basis for the causes the participants support or oppose), the fact is that a pro-constitutional popular movement with access to guns would be no more effective at limiting the authority of the army in our hypothetical, than the BLM movement today is at limiting the authority of the police.

Soldiers don't want to shoot civilians, for sure. But when push comes to shove, civilians don't want to kill soldiers, either. And most people are perfectly willing to bow to authority; they think they are not, but history shows that they actually are.

Is your assertion that the police move freely amongst the "ghettos", safely enforcing the utmost of law and order?? The crime rate in these places is equivalent to anywhere else, due to the ability of the armed authority to control that populace?

 

[bilby]

I don't think so. The military would be portrayed as (and seen by most of the citizens as) merely reinforcement for the police (who might be disbanded under the pretext of being incapable of maintaining order, or merely placed under military control).

Sure, a handful of upset locals might start shooting soldiers (and/or cops); but the vast majority of people would condemn such opposition to the rule of law, uncaring or disinterested in the constitutionality of the whole situation.

If you want to know how it would play out, if a militarised police force was opposed by a minority of citizens, but supported by the majority (who prefer deference over resistance, however just or unjust the authorities might be), then you need look no further than the inner city black ghettos of major US cities today - regardless of the right or wrong of the situation (please feel free to discuss whether BLM is or is not justified on one of the myriad other threads - this thread is about strategic and tactical ideas, not the moral basis for the causes the participants support or oppose), the fact is that a pro-constitutional popular movement with access to guns would be no more effective at limiting the authority of the army in our hypothetical, than the BLM movement today is at limiting the authority of the police.

Soldiers don't want to shoot civilians, for sure. But when push comes to shove, civilians don't want to kill soldiers, either. And most people are perfectly willing to bow to authority; they think they are not, but history shows that they actually are.

Is your assertion that the police move freely amongst the "ghettos", safely enforcing the utmost of law and order?? The crime rate in these places is equivalent to anywhere else, due to the ability of the armed authority to control that populace?

No; my assertion is that the police are not at the slightest risk of being wiped out, beaten, defeated or annihilated by the citizens in those ghettos.

There is no question about which side is going to 'win' when a riot takes place; everyone knows that the cops will not just prevail, but kick ass, in any direct conflict.

 

[Malintent]

Is your assertion that the police move freely amongst the "ghettos", safely enforcing the utmost of law and order?? The crime rate in these places is equivalent to anywhere else, due to the ability of the armed authority to control that populace?

No; my assertion is that the police are not at the slightest risk of being wiped out, beaten, defeated or annihilated by the citizens in those ghettos.

There is no question about which side is going to 'win' when a riot takes place; everyone knows that the cops will not just prevail, but kick ass, in any direct conflict.

It has been my observation that the police pull out of those situations.. so I am asserting that yes, the cops DO get "wiped out" (etc..), in a manner of speaking. If they attempted to enforce they would, so they retreat.

.. just like the Feds did in the Bundy matter... they retreated in the face of a crowd of unruly gun-toting cowboys, because they didn't want to have to shoot them or get shot at.

 

[Malintent]

Here is a recent video of our military being pushed into retreat by a group of civilians that believed they were fighting for their American values... on horseback, no less... after being warned that they will be shot if they don't disband... they didn't, and they weren't, and they "won" that confrontation.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Malintent]

another example... the LA riots. Police just pulled back and let it run its course. Over 1 billion dollars of damage was done before it burnt itself out.

What did the men with guns learn from that? Well, let OJ free, of course... Simpson was given a pass in fear of a repeat of the LA riots, which they obviously were sharply aware they were powerless to control.

In this example, the civilians "beat back" the cops, and future incidents were avoided by the powers that be, aware they are powerless against a rioting society.

 

[LordKiran]

another example... the LA riots. Police just pulled back and let it run its course. Over 1 billion dollars of damage was done before it burnt itself out.

What did the men with guns learn from that? Well, let OJ free, of course... Simpson was given a pass in fear of a repeat of the LA riots, which they obviously were sharply aware they were powerless to control.

In this example, the civilians "beat back" the cops, and future incidents were avoided by the powers that be, aware they are powerless against a rioting society.

While I am not very knowledgable on the subject of the LA riots, your connecting that set of events to OJ going free sounds incredibly suspect.

 

[J842P]

In another thread, Malintent raises the prospect of Manhattanites standing up against a federal military coup. Rather than derail that thread, I would like to discuss that question here, as it seems to be a common myth in the US that the people might need to do this - and that if they did, that they could win.

[...] If a federal militia were to come marching into my city, they would all be buried by the 2 million+ residents, patriotically defending the nation.

It will never come to that... the military wouldn't attack citizens due to the ethics instilled in them... and that other reason: we would fucking kill them all very easily. what is it? less than 1 million soldiers stationed domestically? If every single enlisted soldier marched up to Manhattan island, with no other help from outside the boroughs, the residents there alone would outnumber the entire population of all branches of the military, 2 to 1.

Unless, of course, the plan was to nuke every major city... I'm thinking more of a reaction to any attempt at military control of the populace.

History suggests that this is not what happens. A military coup leading to martial law is not significantly resisted by the people - the vast majority of the population just knuckles under, and does as they are told. A sizeable minority will support the coup, and will say that martial law is necessary (albeit regrettable and temporary); and only a small number of people would actually try to resist.

But even if a large majority of the population were united in their desire to fight back, how effective would they be?

Combat hasn't been a pure numbers game since before the First World War. A million civilians, no matter how well armed, is not an army, and a small number of professional soldiers with tactical training, backed by a well defined chain of command, a properly organised logistics train, and commanded by generals with experience and training in the strategy and art of war, would annihilate any mass resistance.

An army isn't just a lot of people with guns any more.

And even an actual army, with a well established military and civilian leadership, at a time of much lower technology, couldn't beat the US Army in the 1860s.

A bunch of New Yorkers with nothing but a few handguns and a strong sense of entitlement, wouldn't last five minutes.

Yeah, I've got to agree that is a pretty laughably naive view. The "armed populace rising against tyranny" is a pretty pervasive meme in the US. And who knows, maybe if it *did* come to it, this very same mythos would lead to a different outcome in the States, but I really doubt it.

There is also the small issue that a bunch of people with guns does not make an army. Especially not a modern army.

 

[J842P]

I'm with the OP 100%. It'd be a massacre.
... call in a missile strike and that's the end of that.

well, of course... the premise was that the goal was to control, not eliminate. Such control will be impossible. The only "win" for the military would be nuking every major city... and then what has the military "won", a wasteland with no ability to generate revenue, food, gas, or anything at all?

This thread was inspired by a comment that had nothing to do with our military's ability to destroy the country, but how impossible it would be to control the people through military force.

Yes, but your premise that there *would be* massive resistance is hardly self-evident. Going by how this *usually* happens, most people give in immediately, and small pockets of resistance and counter-revolutionaries form, and that's where the real fight occurs, and the great swaths of people not directly involved get stuck in the cross-fire.

 

[bilby]

another example... the LA riots. Police just pulled back and let it run its course. Over 1 billion dollars of damage was done before it burnt itself out.

What did the men with guns learn from that? Well, let OJ free, of course... Simpson was given a pass in fear of a repeat of the LA riots, which they obviously were sharply aware they were powerless to control.

In this example, the civilians "beat back" the cops, and future incidents were avoided by the powers that be, aware they are powerless against a rioting society.

So is South Central LA now an independent nation state?

Or is a tactical withdrawal a perfectly legitimate way to minimise friendly casualties in a conflict that you know you will win in the end?

 

[Warpoet]

So is South Central LA now an independent nation state?

Or is a tactical withdrawal a perfectly legitimate way to minimise friendly casualties in a conflict that you know you will win in the end?

Well, I think the mindset was more "let's keep the white neighborhoods safe while the blacks and Koreans duke it out." The police and national guard combined had more than enough resources to quell the violence faster than they did. It just wasn't their top priority.

Going back to the OP, I don't think many serious analysts would even contemplate the idea of a civilian militia defeating any kind of professional armed force. Make an occupation a costly and bloody affair not worth the political or economic cost? Maybe. And if the economy is so disrupted that supply chains start collapsing, and soldiers start deserting en masse the scenario changes. But very few people living cushy first world lives will ever risk them for ideological reasons no matter how big a game they talk. And so as long as a substantial force remains, the idea of civilians defeating it militarily is folly.

Numbers mean very little. When Europeans starting pouring into the Americas, the indigenous had the numbers to annihilate them all several times over and even tried a few times. But it never happened; even after they started appropriating firearms, the combined technological disparity and lack of discipline was overwhelming. That was the age of muskets and cannons. What do you think is gonna happen if a bunch if rednecks go up against a fucking Abrams battle tank with air support?

 

[LordKiran]

So is South Central LA now an independent nation state?

Or is a tactical withdrawal a perfectly legitimate way to minimise friendly casualties in a conflict that you know you will win in the end?

Well, I think the mindset was more "let's keep the white neighborhoods safe while the blacks and Koreans duke it out." The police and national guard combined had more than enough resources to quell the violence faster than they did. It just wasn't their top priority.

Going back to the OP, I don't think many serious analysts would even contemplate the idea of a civilian militia defeating any kind of professional armed force. Make an occupation a costly and bloody affair not worth the political or economic cost? Maybe. And if the economy is so disrupted that supply chains start collapsing, and soldiers start deserting en masse the scenario changes. But very few people living cushy first world lives will ever risk them for ideological reasons no matter how big a game they talk. And so as long as a substantial force remains, the idea of civilians defeating it militarily is folly.

Numbers mean very little. When Europeans starting pouring into the Americas, the indigenous had the numbers to annihilate them all several times over and even tried a few times. But it never happened; even after they started appropriating firearms, the combined technological disparity and lack of discipline was overwhelming. That was the age of muskets and cannons. What do you think is gonna happen if a bunch if rednecks go up against a fucking Abrams battle tank with air support?

The natives were not a unified nation when the settlers came but a series of loose confederations. Their situation is more comparable to Julius Ceaser's conquest of Gual than anything else. The reason they couldn't resist colonialism has less to do with technological disparity or a lack of discipline and more to do with a lack of any central authority to take charge and divert sufficient numbers and resources to mount a concerted war effort. A lack of centralism is what lead to the native's ultimate defeat, not a lack of guts or gunpowder.

 

[Warpoet]

That was the underlying problem in the bigger picture (although it's doubtful anything would have stopped Europeans from taking their land and resources eventually), but the point was that even when they did marshal superior numbers they tended to lose very badly for the above reasons. It's not a perfect historical analogy to what the OP describes, but I don't think there is one.

 

[bilby]

Well, I think the mindset was more "let's keep the white neighborhoods safe while the blacks and Koreans duke it out." The police and national guard combined had more than enough resources to quell the violence faster than they did. It just wasn't their top priority.

Going back to the OP, I don't think many serious analysts would even contemplate the idea of a civilian militia defeating any kind of professional armed force. Make an occupation a costly and bloody affair not worth the political or economic cost? Maybe. And if the economy is so disrupted that supply chains start collapsing, and soldiers start deserting en masse the scenario changes. But very few people living cushy first world lives will ever risk them for ideological reasons no matter how big a game they talk. And so as long as a substantial force remains, the idea of civilians defeating it militarily is folly.

Numbers mean very little. When Europeans starting pouring into the Americas, the indigenous had the numbers to annihilate them all several times over and even tried a few times. But it never happened; even after they started appropriating firearms, the combined technological disparity and lack of discipline was overwhelming. That was the age of muskets and cannons. What do you think is gonna happen if a bunch if rednecks go up against a fucking Abrams battle tank with air support?

The natives were not a unified nation when the settlers came but a series of loose confederations. Their situation is more comparable to Julius Ceaser's conquest of Gual than anything else. The reason they couldn't resist colonialism has less to do with technological disparity or a lack of discipline and more to do with a lack of any central authority to take charge and divert sufficient numbers and resources to mount a concerted war effort. A lack of centralism is what lead to the native's ultimate defeat, not a lack of guts or gunpowder.

And a lack of centralism is practically the defining feature of the Second Amendment fanboys. They are all about liberty the individual, ahead of liberty for the society of which they are (reluctantly) a part.

If centralism is a prerequisite for victory, then the army is going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what armaments they might possess or obtain.

 

[LordKiran]

The natives were not a unified nation when the settlers came but a series of loose confederations. Their situation is more comparable to Julius Ceaser's conquest of Gual than anything else. The reason they couldn't resist colonialism has less to do with technological disparity or a lack of discipline and more to do with a lack of any central authority to take charge and divert sufficient numbers and resources to mount a concerted war effort. A lack of centralism is what lead to the native's ultimate defeat, not a lack of guts or gunpowder.

And a lack of centralism is practically the defining feature of the Second Amendment fanboys. They are all about liberty the individual, ahead of liberty for the society of which they are (reluctantly) a part.

If centralism is a prerequisite for victory, then the army is going to wipe the floor with them, no matter what armaments they might possess or obtain.

In a military context, yes. The party which can best muster and utilize its resources is usually the victor.

EDIT

Also bare in mind, I say 'usually' only as a formality in order to hedge my bets against asswipes who like to nit-pick history to find that one exception to the rule. Functionally, that 'usually' is actually an 'always'.