Civilians vs The Government

[bilby]

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

Even in 1776, the revolution's success was dependant upon a number of factors that the revolutionary's couldn't have possibly predicted. To name a few:

-They outnumbered the royal army significantly

-They had the material/military support of a foreign major power

-The royal navy and army were in constant competition with each other and didn't work well together

-The royal army made constant PR blunders that lost them the popular support with the colonists

 

[bilby]

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.



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.

Even in 1776, the revolution's success was dependant upon a number of factors that the revolutionary's couldn't have possibly predicted. To name a few:

-They outnumbered the royal army significantly

-They had the material/military support of a foreign major power

-The royal navy and army were in constant competition with each other and didn't work well together

-The royal army made constant PR blunders that lost them the popular support with the colonists

This is true.

But I would like to point out that the British haven't had a Royal Army since 1649.

The modern British Army is based on the Army of the New Model, raised in 1645 by Sir Thomas Fairfax, to fight AGAINST the Royal Army.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Yea, three seals would take out a hundred farmer Johns with hunting rifles.

 

[LordKiran]

Even in 1776, the revolution's success was dependant upon a number of factors that the revolutionary's couldn't have possibly predicted. To name a few:

-They outnumbered the royal army significantly

-They had the material/military support of a foreign major power

-The royal navy and army were in constant competition with each other and didn't work well together

-The royal army made constant PR blunders that lost them the popular support with the colonists

This is true.

But I would like to point out that the British haven't had a Royal Army since 1649.

The modern British Army is based on the Army of the New Model, raised in 1645 by Sir Thomas Fairfax, to fight AGAINST the Royal Army.

Huh, did not know that. Thanks!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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."

A responsible government will try to defuse the situation and eventually appeal to the soldiers' sense of honor and get them to turn themselves in to face charges for mutiny, with a dishonorable discharge and a brief jail sentence. An asshole totalitarian government will send another group of soldiers to try and force the protesting soldiers to surrender, which results in two different units of your armed forces opening fire on each other, which in turn results in more defections ("What kind of asshole orders us to fire on our own people just because so Officer Dickface can keep his job? Fuck that!") and makes the revolt stronger.

tl;dr: Any popular uprising against the government is dead on arrival unless at least SOME of the military is backing it up. It is indeed true that freedom grows out of the barrel of a gun, but it is also true that those kinds of guns cannot be bought in stores.

 

[BH]

These days I doubt the average member of the military would be loyal to the citizenry. Most join just to butter their own bread and could care less about the rest of the population.


If the population en masse stood up and said " No way" the military would probably lose. But that is the thing. Most would either go along with it, support it, or simply cower.

Believe it or not we have had state governments overthrown by violence twice in US history. When Texas was an independent country its military once tried to overthrow the government. The coup attempt did not succeed and the general fled for his life out of the country to the US.

 

[bilby]

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."

A responsible government will try to defuse the situation and eventually appeal to the soldiers' sense of honor and get them to turn themselves in to face charges for mutiny, with a dishonorable discharge and a brief jail sentence. An asshole totalitarian government will send another group of soldiers to try and force the protesting soldiers to surrender, which results in two different units of your armed forces opening fire on each other, which in turn results in more defections ("What kind of asshole orders us to fire on our own people just because so Officer Dickface can keep his job? Fuck that!") and makes the revolt stronger.

tl;dr: Any popular uprising against the government is dead on arrival unless at least SOME of the military is backing it up. It is indeed true that freedom grows out of the barrel of a gun, but it is also true that those kinds of guns cannot be bought in stores.

^This.

There's a good reason why successful revolutions since the advent of the machine gun resulted in a government led by General Someoneorother, or at the very least Colonel Whatshisname.

Revolutions started without the level of military organisation implied by field rank leadership are non-starters - so no nation is run by Captain Whosehisface, or Sergeant Thatguythere.

Organisation, tactics, secure communication and logistics are all more critical than numbers, passion, and righteousness; and none of these can be simply thrown together overnight - they require training, discipline and time to establish.

 

[Opoponax]

I'm with the OP 100%. It'd be a massacre.

The modern U.S. army against a bunch of disorganized shmoes with small arms would result in a number of casualties to the soldiers, but once isolated in a certain area, say for example a group of resistance fighters holed up in a building; call in a missile strike and that's the end of that.

Harassment is the best that could be done. But given the current gun owner circumstances, we're talking about gun owning liberals vs. the army. Hah! I mean, if it were the American conservatives vs. a nightmare leftist government, then something on the scale of the partisans vs. the Nazis is reasonably imaginable. But when I go to the range and/or talk to other gun owners, I'm almost always the lone lefty. Therefore, given the current circumstances, we're talking more about suicide missions than effective resistance.

In hunting forums though, it's actually pretty different. Believe it or not, there's a strong progressive (or at least conservationist) tilt among western U.S. big game hunters. But would hunters become revolutionary fighters? The vast majority would not. Many of them reload/handload, and they take shooting seriously... At best you're talking about a small group of very capable, but highly disorganized snipers; certainly not professional soldiers, although many of them are veterans.

Today's modern military capabilities, such as infrared, thermal imaging, air reconnaissance, FIRE POWER, experience with insurgency operations, et.al would kick the living shit out of any attempted civilian uprising.

I have a friend I still talk to from my way-back Army days. He's still in and has been to Afghanistan and Iraq multiple times. I jokingly told him we're going to secede (California) and he got all serious and said, "do you motherfuckers actually think you could stand up to ..." I forget exactly what he said, but it made my joke seem very small indeed. I still told him "fuck you anyway" and he said maybe if we did secede he'd come over because Jim Morrison and The Doors first got famous in California and he's a big fan.

 

[braces_for_impact]

That's what I always say to gun nuts that spout the "gotta keep the gubmit in check" line. They will do to Joe Bob what they do with Mohammed B'aab. You hear a noise and run to go get your AR-15, get hit by a predator missile from a drone and never even see the face of your attacker. Game over, Bubba.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That's what I always say to gun nuts that spout the "gotta keep the gubmit in check" line. They will do to Joe Bob what they do with Mohammed B'aab. You hear a noise and run to go get your AR-15, get hit by a predator missile from a drone and never even see the face of your attacker. Game over, Bubba.

I dis-agree. Whenever there is tor-nad-o warnin' I gets my gun and head onto the roof. A few good shots at that them their twister sends it scattering into the clouds!

 

[BH]

Do you think we'll see something like a coup or military government in the US? I know nothing can fix the "economic problems" in any way that will please both the supra business owners and the general public. And people in general are rather selfsh and ignorant about how the world really works. They are easy to deceive. And it is just so damn hard to develop any consensus in a nation of 320 million people. I just hope if it does happen we don't end up with a general like Idi Amin or Jorge Videla.

 

[Horatio Parker]

All govts seek legitimacy in world and domestic opinion. That's not so easy to come by if you slaughter your own people. It also tends to inflame rather than suppress the opposition(insistence on unconditional surrender lengthened WWII). So, sure, a handful of military personnel could lay waste to NY, but what have you won? Also, there's an assumption that the military would indeed fire on civilians. They may choose otherwise. Resistance may be non-violent.

But I agree that some modern day minute man scenario is a fantasy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If the population en masse stood up and said " No way" the military would probably lose.

No, it would not. Not unless a significant portion of the military -- or even a portion of influential FORMER military, veterans or retired generals -- switched sides and joined the citizens. The ex military and the defectors would be able to provide a degree of competence and cohesion to a movement that would otherwise completely fall apart at the first sign of direct opposition.

This is actually the main difference between a revolt and a riot. A revolt will usually have some sort of concrete objective with groups of people working cooperatively to pursue that objective. In a riot, there are no leaders at all, just a mass of individuals acting on their own impulses.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do you think we'll see something like a coup or military government in the US?

Very unlikely. U.S. military doesn't have the kind of insulated culture that causes soldiers to be excessively loyal to their generals or commanding officers. They're loyal to members of their own immediate unit (squad, platoon, company, etc) but the colonels and generals higher up the chain can pretty much go fuck themselves.

One possible exception is the SEALs, but that's mainly because they have a relatively flat command structure and a far broader umbrella for "internal" culture. If the SEALs collectively decided that someone in the U.S. government was a problem looking for an extraordinary solution, they would totally handle it. But something very weird would have to happen for them to team up with a civilian movement or an "uprising" as it were.

 

[BH]

If the population en masse stood up and said " No way" the military would probably lose.

No, it would not. Not unless a significant portion of the military -- or even a portion of influential FORMER military, veterans or retired generals -- switched sides and joined the citizens. The ex military and the defectors would be able to provide a degree of competence and cohesion to a movement that would otherwise completely fall apart at the first sign of direct opposition.

This is actually the main difference between a revolt and a riot. A revolt will usually have some sort of concrete objective with groups of people working cooperatively to pursue that objective. In a riot, there are no leaders at all, just a mass of individuals acting on their own impulses.

Of course, the population en masse includes former military and folks able to develop organizational ties.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No, it would not. Not unless a significant portion of the military -- or even a portion of influential FORMER military, veterans or retired generals -- switched sides and joined the citizens. The ex military and the defectors would be able to provide a degree of competence and cohesion to a movement that would otherwise completely fall apart at the first sign of direct opposition.

This is actually the main difference between a revolt and a riot. A revolt will usually have some sort of concrete objective with groups of people working cooperatively to pursue that objective. In a riot, there are no leaders at all, just a mass of individuals acting on their own impulses.

Of course, the population en masse includes former military and folks able to develop organizational ties.

Yes, but that doesn't mean former military officers will actually PARTICIPATE in the revolt. If all of them sit at home and watch the whole thing in TV, then it goes nowhere and does nothing. They would have to take an active leadership role in the action, almost to the point of being the initiators of it in the first place. Without that, it's not a revolt, just an incredibly specific riot.

 

[Bronzeage]

These days I doubt the average member of the military would be loyal to the citizenry. Most join just to butter their own bread and could care less about the rest of the population.


If the population en masse stood up and said " No way" the military would probably lose. But that is the thing. Most would either go along with it, support it, or simply cower.

Believe it or not we have had state governments overthrown by violence twice in US history. When Texas was an independent country its military once tried to overthrow the government. The coup attempt did not succeed and the general fled for his life out of the country to the US.

This calls for a delicate definition of "lose." The US military is not homogeneous block. There is no reason to believe they would react to orders to attack citizens without question. Every soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution. If there is a Constitutional crisis, the first thing to suffer is the chain of command. Who is in charge, it there is no President, or maybe, two Presidents.

Imagine if the elected President is arrested and the Vice President takes his place, but they don't follow the Constitutional procedure. What does a General do? It's a question which will go down the line to sergeants and corporals. There is a very old dictum of command which states, "Never give an order that you do not expect to be obeyed." A similar dictum applies to orders, if you are just uncertain. There is no way to predict which units would follow orders, especially against civilian targets.

There won't be a US Army, there will be several. We can look at any nation where the government failed and look at what happened to the military. Instead of a military sworn to defend the Constitution, we have militias, each with their own interests and loyalties. Any remains of the legitimate US military will be decimated by desertion and insubordination. This is what happened everywhere else. There's no reason to think it would be different here.

 

[Elixir]

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.