Civilians vs The Government

[bilby]

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'.

In that vein, bear in mind that my 'If' was functionally a 'Given that'.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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...

Not even close. Such a revolt could be pacified fairly easily just be scattering any members of the revolt where they are gathered most. Without any coherent leadership to rally them, the "revolt" would just break up into a million disparate cells that don't really talk to each other and have nothing in common except their mutual hatred of the government that is killing them.

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.

They wouldn't have to control the people, just control their movements. That's basic riot control protocol; even police departments can seal off whole neighborhoods and impose a curfew. The military in this same mode could make the streets of ANY American city a complete deathtrap after 7:00pm.

And that's just if they're sloppy. Surveillance systems can give them the exact locations, names and addresses of anyone who might emerge as the movement's leadership. Imagine 1960s era COINTELPRO in the smartphone era, and then imagine Huey P. Newton dying in a drone strike for the general idea.

 

[fromderinside]

On the notion that no take out of government has succeeded without support of significant military is applicable I agree that it is likely.

US military is made of up citizens who do not change their allegiance to CIC. If a movement is robust, the state corrupt, and significant civilians are standing up to potential force, I believe both military and civilian elements would resist repression.

I submit we could get a China solution as took place after Tienanmen square or took place when the Politburo tried to take over from Gorbachev presidency. In both cases powerful counter entities rose up to deny such authority's moves. Both were popular revolts and repression by political authority was denied by these other significant forces.

It is the same in the US where soldier citizens remain voting citizens. If those in power tried to squelch a significant uprising both political and military resistance would rise up to thwart killing or imprisoning citizens probably leading to a rewriting of the constitution bringing it up to date and giving more citizens written rights.

Actually we're about due.

 

[dismal]

Actually we're about due.

We'll see what happens in Venezuela. You not only have a government that is mismanaging the country into starvation but one that has lost the support of the people and frustrated the democratic processes to remove them. Maduro may have one last shot at making a democratic exit in 2018, but if not it seems the only way he'll leave is hanging on a lamp post.

Based on the violent crime they appear to have plenty of guns in circulation, though it's not clear that the street gangs are not in league with the government.

I would suspect the army generals will stay loyal for along time as they risk lamp post exits too, but the trouble usually comes from the Colonels.

 

[fromderinside]

There are at least three moving parts in Venezuela, industrialists, oil, and banking elites, masses, and 'bolivarian revolution' originating from masses but now estranged from masses. My guess is that the military is lead by those who were originally rightists so when the order to kill the protesters comes down they will hesitate, proabaly causing the dictatorists to fall.

What follows will be tricky.

If military is actually rightist lead, infantry will probably go with the people while leadership will align with industrial elements. Since there is little discipline left the military will end up favoring masses and I guess we're in for another round of populism unless some charismatic individual from the right stands forming a cohesive possibility.

I doubt they'll either go back to Chavez government or it's industrialist predecessor. The best that can be hoped for institutions be re-authorized to communicate with the west, probably making Venezuela's oil patch relevant again.

 

[Malintent]

My point was not that our military is weak or unable to take a city with force... it is that they would be unwilling in the face of how anti-American this whole hypothetical is.

I agree with the suggestion that the military would be on the side of the uprising (or else have to exert force on those they are duty-bound and committed to protect)..

those very few and scattered individuals or individual groups that may decide to blindly follow orders and assault the people and violate the foundation of this country. .THEY would have their collective asses handed to them.

While the entirety of our military, numbers-wise, is a pittance of the population of any densely populated area, I did not mean to imply that the entirety of our military would follow illegal or unethical orders, and be wholly eliminated by the populace... The small number that would attempt to defend a dictatorship would (rightfully) die at the hands of the populace.

It is the duty of all Americans to defend the Constitution in this way. NOT fighting against an attempted dictatorship is un-American. Those who follow a dictator are culpable. Those that fight against are heroes.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is a very interesting thread, and some really good observations and examinations of "what ifs".
But seriously folks - is there even the remotest chance of any such thing occurring under a Trump regime? Given total power (which he is quite obviously seeking), what would he do? So far, it appears that all he wants is title of ownership to ... fucking everything. He wants to be heralded as the richest person the world has ever seen. Any action that results in the destruction of property would be counterproductive to his net worth. IOW, he will try to accomplish his end with a minimum of violence, except toward those individuals who oppose him. Every effort will be made to keep it from spilling onto the his streets, lest they become devalued in the fray. I think Trump will make every effort to keep the scenario above (divided militaries tearing up "his" property) from coming to pass.

The idea of a people's revolution is simply the eternal wet dream of the small Marxist splinter groups behind the Women's march who hoped that this would happen after the election. (I verified their names on an earlier thread).The US is a democracy (of sorts) and simple Butt-hurt over election results isn't a reason to stage a coup.

Since there is an investigation into the very disjointed reports being fed to the press it's better to wait for the outcome.

Britain it seems is more obsessed with its up and coming elections. I will be looking to vote for the least terrible candidate. I'm sure the Americans did the same during its last election.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My point was not that our military is weak or unable to take a city with force... it is that they would be unwilling in the face of how anti-American this whole hypothetical is.

Consider the percentage of U.S. voters who went to truly absurd lengths to justify Donald Trump's incompetence and nepotism, and consider this is approximately the same group of people who spent eight years death-wishing against Barrack Obama at the flimsiest of provocations. Then consider that what one defines as "American" is highly subjective.

There are many scenarios where an ultra-conservative government could easily count on its military to carry out unethical/illegal orders. If, for example, the Republicans got completely crushed in a state election and the Democrats wound up with a supermajority in a previously Republican state, I wouldn't put it bast Trump to declare the election fraudulent and nullify the results. Let this happen in enough states -- or worse, let it happen in a congressional or presidential election -- and you have the Crybaby in Chief calling up a small army of Republican Party Faithful to keep him and his friends in power. Which they would, because their hatred of democrats and/or liberals far surpasses their love for anything we (or even they) would recognize as "America."

It is the duty of all Americans to defend the Constitution in this way. NOT fighting against an attempted dictatorship is un-American.

And considering that over a third of the population of this country called OBAMA a dictator, where does that leave us? There is a huge segment of the American population that doesn't fight for anything they love, they only fight to destroy something they hate.

 

[Malintent]

Consider the percentage of U.S. voters who went to truly absurd lengths to justify Donald Trump's incompetence and nepotism, and consider this is approximately the same group of people who spent eight years death-wishing against Barrack Obama at the flimsiest of provocations. Then consider that what one defines as "American" is highly subjective.

There are many scenarios where an ultra-conservative government could easily count on its military to carry out unethical/illegal orders. If, for example, the Republicans got completely crushed in a state election and the Democrats wound up with a supermajority in a previously Republican state, I wouldn't put it bast Trump to declare the election fraudulent and nullify the results. Let this happen in enough states -- or worse, let it happen in a congressional or presidential election -- and you have the Crybaby in Chief calling up a small army of Republican Party Faithful to keep him and his friends in power. Which they would, because their hatred of democrats and/or liberals far surpasses their love for anything we (or even they) would recognize as "America."

It is the duty of all Americans to defend the Constitution in this way. NOT fighting against an attempted dictatorship is un-American.

And considering that over a third of the population of this country called OBAMA a dictator, where does that leave us? There is a huge segment of the American population that doesn't fight for anything they love, they only fight to destroy something they hate.

.. that they were using hyperbole then, and now it is not.. It is one thing to analogously call a leader with which you disagree on policy a 'dictator', and entirely another to call a leader that is abusing his power in a specific way to ensure the checks and balances on his power are lessened, an actual dictator (wannabe).

Obama may have seemed like a dictator to some, but trump is actually attempting to literally BE a dictator.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

that they were using hyperbole then

Not all of them knew that. And some would have been willing to carry out that hyperbole to its logical conclusion if only they were given an excuse.

It is one thing to analogously call a leader with which you disagree on policy a 'dictator', and entirely another to call a leader that is abusing his power in a specific way to ensure the checks and balances on his power are lessened, an actual dictator (wannabe).

That's my point: this is EXACTLY what they were accusing Obama of despite a complete lack of evidence. There is a segment of Republicans who are willing to believe just about any negative trope about a democrat -- especially a black democrat -- just because. This is approximately the same group of people that is unwilling to believe that anything Donald Trump does or says is unjustified or even slightly suspicious.

So if Trump went on the airwaves and claimed that the new Democratic governor of Illinois had been installed by massive voter fraud and corrupt Chicago Machine Politics and ordered the U.S. Army to "close down the state" until a fresh election could be held, the ENTIRE Republican base would go along with it. Because everyone knows Illinois is known for being corrupt as hell, and because Donald Trump LOVES HIS COUNTRY so much that he wouldn't send in the army to save a corrupt state like Illinois from a democratic coup de tat if he didn't know for sure it was absolutely necessary.

Obama may have seemed like a dictator to some, but trump is actually attempting to literally BE a dictator.

And how many times in history has a wannabe dictator been overthrown PURELY because he was a dictator? I don't think that's normally how that works. On the contrary, I think dictators and autocrats and "strongmen" taking control of countries tend to be pretty successful until they run into something or someone powerful enough to drive them out of power. Often enough, this is a competing dictator or a populist revolution that hates him less for his government style than for what he has actually done.

And the people who love Donald Trump would love him all the same even if he was a dictator, just like they hated Barrack Obama despite the fact that he WASN'T.

 

[LordKiran]

This is a very interesting thread, and some really good observations and examinations of "what ifs".
But seriously folks - is there even the remotest chance of any such thing occurring under a Trump regime? Given total power (which he is quite obviously seeking), what would he do? So far, it appears that all he wants is title of ownership to ... fucking everything. He wants to be heralded as the richest person the world has ever seen. Any action that results in the destruction of property would be counterproductive to his net worth. IOW, he will try to accomplish his end with a minimum of violence, except toward those individuals who oppose him. Every effort will be made to keep it from spilling onto the his streets, lest they become devalued in the fray. I think Trump will make every effort to keep the scenario above (divided militaries tearing up "his" property) from coming to pass.

The idea of a people's revolution is simply the eternal wet dream of the small Marxist splinter groups behind the Women's march who hoped that this would happen after the election. (I verified their names on an earlier thread).The US is a democracy (of sorts) and simple Butt-hurt over election results isn't a reason to stage a coup.

Since there is an investigation into the very disjointed reports being fed to the press it's better to wait for the outcome.

Britain it seems is more obsessed with its up and coming elections. I will be looking to vote for the least terrible candidate. I'm sure the Americans did the same during its last election.

https://media.giphy.com/media/xUPGcqN9laat2ooiJi/giphy.gif