Well THAT will end well...(Armed March On Washington)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

ravenshrike:
The person at Kent State who fired the pistol in question was a FBI photographer planted within the crowd. He was the only person in the crowd with a gun on him.

If there was a conspiracy on the part of the government, I would have expected Wikipedia to say that it was one of the students. But what it actually says is:

At 12:24 pm, according to eyewitnesses, a Sgt. Myron Pryor turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. A number of guardsmen nearest the students also turned and fired their M1 Garand rifles at the students. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using a final total of 67 rounds of ammunition. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although John Kifner reported in the New York Times that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired remains widely debated.

Normally I'd be skeptical of using Wikipedia as a source, but the nature of the discrepancy here makes that irrelevant. It wasn't a government official pretending to be a student, it was a government official openly firing on unarmed civilians. I'm curious about where and why you got the thing about the FBI photographer when the commonly accepted truth is so much more blatant.

So it does not appear to be an attempt to blame the crowd. Besides, you have to ask yourself what was in this for the government. A bunch of student protestors are an unlikely target for assassination, and the incident turned public opinion against the government, so it makes no sense for it to have been a planned massacre.

ravenshrike:

It was not until after his four pistol shots that the Nat. Guard fired into the crowd. Whether it was a genuine response to the initial gunfire or merely used as a pretext can be debated by those who care, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the actions of the feds and their hirelings which caused the problems.

True, but not in the way you claim.

ravenshrike:

As for being angry, I merely refer to the agencies in question with the scorn they deserve given their past actions. I'm not angry at all.

Very well, you're not angry, you're scornful. How is that better? How does it make your comments seem any more informed?

Jayemsal:
snip

I dunno, I played command and conquer a few times and just happen to know 10,000 infantry can take down anything lulz.

On topic. Either this will be a bloodbath or a traffic jam.

I think the best solution would be .... at 1:30

Though 10,000 civvies firing at an army of police and army personnel would be a hell of a sight! The clean up would take weeks, the bodies would either have a mass grave or be rotted by the time they are buried.

I feel the need to comment on a pervasive attitude, in response to the suggestion that Americans can't stage an armed revolt because it means directly battling a powerful military:

This understanding assumes conventional combat; that as absurd as it sounds. Today's wars are not fought with "Army Men" figures lining up neatly according to classes and sorted by team color. It very likely would be a nightmare.

Americans can recall the power of the Cold War and government infiltration. We remember the enemy in Vietnam and how it managed to hold out against the power of the US military. We know organized crime and how drug cartels and prison gangs are extremely resourceful and difficult to penetrate, let alone defeat. We know what terrorists with very little resources and intelligence can do against armored vehicles, drones and experienced soldiers. Many Americans are and have yet to experience this first-hand. And we know how little it takes for the big gears of this country to grind to halt; imagine the Boston bombings happening all over the nation. Every day.

As a completely hypothetical scenario, if there ever is an organized revolution against the US government, it is not going to be fought on the US military and LE terms. It would be as brutal, nasty and desperate as war really is.

AgedGrunt:
I feel the need to comment on a pervasive attitude, in response to the suggestion that Americans can't stage an armed revolt because it means directly battling a powerful military:

This understanding assumes conventional combat; that as absurd as it sounds. Today's wars are not fought with "Army Men" figures lining up neatly according to classes and sorted by team color. It very likely would be a nightmare.

Americans can recall the power of the Cold War and government infiltration. We remember the enemy in Vietnam and how it managed to hold out against the power of the US military. We know organized crime and how drug cartels and prison gangs are extremely resourceful and difficult to penetrate, let alone defeat. We know what terrorists with very little resources and intelligence can do against armored vehicles, drones and experienced soldiers. Many Americans are and have yet to experience this first-hand. And we know how little it takes for the big gears of this country to grind to halt; imagine the Boston bombings happening all over the nation. Every day.

As a completely hypothetical scenario, if there ever is an organized revolution against the US government, it is not going to be fought on the US military and LE terms. It would be as brutal, nasty and desperate as war really is.

I have brought this up before, but with an additional addendum. The reason a revolution would fail against the US government is that the infrastructure would crumble on top of the rebels. Even if they managed to get the government to step down, it's highly unlikely that the rebels could keep the country going, especially since being part of an insurgency largely means targeting said infrastructure. If any other countries were to intervene, they would likely lend support to the Federalists because the US as it is is super important in maintaining the global economy.

Basically, a successful rebellion against the status quo would be disastrous all around.

McMullen:

ravenshrike:
The person at Kent State who fired the pistol in question was a FBI photographer planted within the crowd. He was the only person in the crowd with a gun on him.

If there was a conspiracy on the part of the government, I would have expected Wikipedia to say that it was one of the students. But what it actually says is:

At 12:24 pm, according to eyewitnesses, a Sgt. Myron Pryor turned and began firing at the students with his .45 pistol. A number of guardsmen nearest the students also turned and fired their M1 Garand rifles at the students. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using a final total of 67 rounds of ammunition. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although John Kifner reported in the New York Times that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired remains widely debated.

Normally I'd be skeptical of using Wikipedia as a source, but the nature of the discrepancy here makes that irrelevant. It wasn't a government official pretending to be a student, it was a government official openly firing on unarmed civilians. I'm curious about where and why you got the thing about the FBI photographer when the commonly accepted truth is so much more blatant.

So it does not appear to be an attempt to blame the crowd. Besides, you have to ask yourself what was in this for the government. A bunch of student protestors are an unlikely target for assassination, and the incident turned public opinion against the government, so it makes no sense for it to have been a planned massacre.

Unless there was a period of 60 seconds or so between Pryor firing and the rest of the Nat. Guard doing so, those were not the pistol shots I was discussing. And I never said that the Feebs wanted that outcome at Kent State, I'm merely pointing out the blame lies at their feet. I also somehow doubt it was the intention of the ratfucks in BATFE to have the compound burned down at the start of the Waco Op. Of course, it was certainly the intention of the Feebs by the end. Or they are so fucking incompetent that they never should have graduated high school let alone enter federal law enforcement. Take your pick. A 5 year old would know better than to drop incendiary smoke grenades on top of a fuel depot which is EXACTLY what the feebs did to end the Waco siege.

ravenshrike:
Feebs feebs feebs

What's a feebs?

Pretty curious, you're accusing them of killing dozens of civilians. Yet I do not know of these feebs.

AgedGrunt:
I feel the need to comment on a pervasive attitude, in response to the suggestion that Americans can't stage an armed revolt because it means directly battling a powerful military:

This understanding assumes conventional combat; that as absurd as it sounds. Today's wars are not fought with "Army Men" figures lining up neatly according to classes and sorted by team color. It very likely would be a nightmare.

Americans can recall the power of the Cold War and government infiltration. We remember the enemy in Vietnam and how it managed to hold out against the power of the US military. We know organized crime and how drug cartels and prison gangs are extremely resourceful and difficult to penetrate, let alone defeat. We know what terrorists with very little resources and intelligence can do against armored vehicles, drones and experienced soldiers. Many Americans are and have yet to experience this first-hand. And we know how little it takes for the big gears of this country to grind to halt; imagine the Boston bombings happening all over the nation. Every day.

As a completely hypothetical scenario, if there ever is an organized revolution against the US government, it is not going to be fought on the US military and LE terms. It would be as brutal, nasty and desperate as war really is.

realistically the only way an even conventially inferior army could fight the us is in built up terrain. simply put being in open terrain lets a modern military like the us play highly effective wackamole with you. what also needs to be taken into consideration in the advent of an uprising in the usa is what the government is willing to do to put it down. you also have to realise the us armed forces have a good decade of counterinsurgency warfare behind them now not to mention if things go pear shaped and they decide things have gotten to the extend of deciding to wipe out whole neighbourhoods rather than engaging in house to house fighting.

once you get convential units defecting the government would get desperate and thats when things would get really bad.

realistically i dont see an armed revolution in the future of the usa as people are far to comfortable with their lives and dont actually want artillery rounds, etc landing outside their homes

AgedGrunt:
I feel the need to comment on a pervasive attitude, in response to the suggestion that Americans can't stage an armed revolt because it means directly battling a powerful military:

This understanding assumes conventional combat; that as absurd as it sounds. Today's wars are not fought with "Army Men" figures lining up neatly according to classes and sorted by team color. It very likely would be a nightmare.

Americans can recall the power of the Cold War and government infiltration. We remember the enemy in Vietnam and how it managed to hold out against the power of the US military. We know organized crime and how drug cartels and prison gangs are extremely resourceful and difficult to penetrate, let alone defeat. We know what terrorists with very little resources and intelligence can do against armored vehicles, drones and experienced soldiers. Many Americans are and have yet to experience this first-hand. And we know how little it takes for the big gears of this country to grind to halt; imagine the Boston bombings happening all over the nation. Every day.

As a completely hypothetical scenario, if there ever is an organized revolution against the US government, it is not going to be fought on the US military and LE terms. It would be as brutal, nasty and desperate as war really is.

The question is not 'what would happen if you managed to get a unified, completely motivated, fully equipped, well provisioned and coordinated insurgent force native to the US with sufficient men/women to actually conduct operations for more than a half hour' it is can you get a force of that character.

Non-conventional does not excuse a force from the requirement for food, water, bullets, coordination, communication, warmth, shelter etc. And unification is especially important, you don't want to spend a month bringing men and materiel into positon and have your position compromised by some random who takes a pot shot at your target.

Then you have the political division of the personal base that you are trying to recruit from, as many people will take up arms in favour of the government.

Then you have the fact that even though insurgents can do damage to conventional forces, they do so at great cost to themselves, often losing between 5/10 men for every experienced soldier they manage to kill.

Then there is the fact that the method of insurgency that you talk about, referencing the Boston bombings, will drive more and more people into the arms of the government.

Then there is the issue of motivation, you cannot use Islamist insurgents as a barometer for what US citizens would do, as they are by definition zealots, willing to die for very little benefit because dying for the cause is its own reward.

Then you have the fact that The US and her allies have been improving their counter-insurgency capabilities for the past decade.

Then you have the fact that there is no first order power that would want the insurgents to take power, it goes against the interests of everybody for the US administration to fall. Plus anyone who is caught taking money from, say Iran, will immediately discredit the movement.

Then you have the fact that the US has been learning to hate insurgents, it is a bad word in the minds of your average citizen.

Then you have... So so many other factors as to why this is insane.

A US insurgency does not, in any way shape or form have any basis in reality.

the clockmaker:
A US insurgency does not, in any way shape or form have any basis in reality.

At point wasn't the capability or even realistic chance of an insurgency succeeding, but the inane suggestion that rebel forces have figurative pea shooters compared to military forces and on that basis alone don't stand a chance. It's just a very stupid presumption of how things would play out; rebellion might not even require guns.

AgedGrunt:

the clockmaker:
A US insurgency does not, in any way shape or form have any basis in reality.

At point wasn't the capability or even realistic chance of an insurgency succeeding, but the inane suggestion that rebel forces have figurative pea shooters compared to military forces and on that basis alone don't stand a chance. It's just a very stupid presumption of how things would play out; rebellion might not even require guns.

And my point was not whether or not it could succeed, but whether or not it could even occur.

2500 armed persons marching into the nations capital is what I call a declaration of war, and a good excuse to test out the autocannons on the new attack helicopters.

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.
image

No, but I think my 50cal will easily destroy the fins of those planes like in Syria via sniping, the tanks I use landmines, and weapnons from defecting us army troops, the attack helicopters I use once again weapons from defecting troops, and I will try to blend in to my city, and the B52s will I guess they will have to bomb a New York City, or Chicago, or whatever city I am located at while killing hundreds just to get to me. Oh, and guess what most defense industries take out those, and the army I doubt can guard all of them, and the government got no more planes, tanks, and ships. If the government were to fight a war against us, we would be better armed them the Vietcong, and those smart bombs won't take out everyone, and they are made through civilian defense contractors, which some will refuse to sell, others will be captured, and destroyed, or tow under ground to make weapons.

Spartan448:
2500 armed persons marching into the nations capital is what I call a declaration of war, and a good excuse to test out the autocannons on the new attack helicopters.

It's not a declaration of war until a shot is fired. The Revolutionary War never started til that.

Gergar12:
If the government were to fight a war against us

Who are you including in that "us"? The people of the US as a whole, or certain small parts of it?

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
If the government were to fight a war against us

Who are you including in that "us"? The people of the US as a whole, or certain small parts of it?

Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

Gergar12:
Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

Those two statements don't seem to be connected by anything.

Gergar12:

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
If the government were to fight a war against us

Who are you including in that "us"? The people of the US as a whole, or certain small parts of it?

Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

So you're saying all gun owners are violent nut jobs? That is not true.

It's more likely that those who will start shooting at other citizens are small minority of gun owners who give the others a bad name.

Frission:

Gergar12:

thaluikhain:

Who are you including in that "us"? The people of the US as a whole, or certain small parts of it?

Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

So you're saying all gun owners are violent nut jobs? That is not true.

It's more likely that those who will start shooting at other citizens are small minority of gun owners who give the others a bad name.

How is defending the supreme law of the land a nut job idea, and I am saying that since there is allot of gun owners, and a good many of them don't like gun laws, and if half or a quarter of the revolt that would be 10-30 percent of the us population, along with many veterans, and defectors from the military.

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

Those two statements don't seem to be connected by anything.

If a part of the United States did revolt the citizenry would have lots of guns to revolt would even if not all of them revolt.

Gergar12:
/snip

You're speaking of your own personal opinion. You're not a spokesman for most gun owners. If there's one thing that I've learned is that there are some gun owners who are quite nice and find that shooting other American citizens would be insane and high treason.

First of all, you statistic of 89 guns per 100 people is sketchy. It also doesn't take into the possibility that people may have multiple weapons or that they just collect vintage weapons. It also doesn't take into account the fact that some of those guns are privately owned. News actually shows that gun ownership is on the decline and estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns.

So at best it's only half of the population. It's also unlikely that the military will join you.

Many people here have explained the logistics of a rebellion and how it would fail.

the clockmaker:
If you want to work out the manning of your insurgency, you're going to have to aim a bit lower than tens of millions
-First off, how many people in your nation are physically non-disabled. (this does not include people with things that will keep them from sustained operations, like the obese, diabetics, epileptics, people that cannot be relied upon to act in that crucial moment)
-Next, how many of those are physically fit and can actually navigate terrain in a high-intensisty situation. Sure you can get a thin bloke and he'll look cool carrying his tricked out armalite, but can he actually conduct fire an movement, or can he actually move stealthily (which is a lot more physically demanding than normal movement) when trained personnel are looking for him
-Next, you need people who are politically active enough that they give a damn about the issue spectrum that you are active in. Most people, so long as it doesn't harm their job are not going to care about say, the right seize government spending records.
-Next, they need to be politically aligned with you. More on this later
-Next, they need to be politically radicalised like you. More people will stamp and shout and wave signs than will ever be willing to actually bring the system down. Look at occupy, how many of those people are still actively continuing the 'struggle' and all they had to do was stay in one place
-Next they have to have access to a weapon, supply and ammo as well as the ability to maintain the weapon in the field. This is not the same thing as maintaining the weapon at home and you need to keep them in supply.
-Next they need to be willing to kill or die in pursuit of their radical beliefs, many will say that they are, but not many actually are.
-Next they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and destroy their own infrastructure. Essentially they have to be willing to shit where they sleep, because when an insurgent blows up a power plant, the army brings in generators and wraps up a bit warmer because they are trained for this, and civilians freeze to death.
-Next they need to know that an insurgency is happening and know that their goals align with yours. In a nation where a fair amount of people don't know the religion of the president, masses of the nation would see your 'glorious movement' as communist, the lefties would be calling it dictatorial and I'm sure some poor deluded folks would call you muslim.
-Next they need to agree that now is the right time, or that your movement is conducting the right methods or that essentially, if an insurgency is called for, you are the best bet. You will get a fuckton of people who will look at you and say 'well we do need to bring down the government, but not yet' Many will see your group as more Timothy McVeigh then Ho Chi Min.
-Next you need leaders to organize the whole thing, and they don't just pop out of thin air. PS-don't suggest your self for this.
-Next you need people staying power, another point to take from the Occupy movement. It got cold, they went home. Same thing, how many of your people are going to spend one night without food and decide the whole thing is bullshit. How many are going to see one mate get killed and decide never to pick up a weapon again.
-Next you need people who will not accept minor concessions as reasons to end the insurgency. Say, by way of example, you went to fight because the government legislated that every firearm you owned had to be registered with the federal government. By way of some miracle you got some sort of fighting force together and the government was worried enough to say 'okay, register it with your local police station who will be legally bound to keep it private from any higher level of authority unless that weapon is used in a crime' from there 90% of your people claim victory and go home, leaving you out in the cold.
-Finally you need to get all of this collated after the people are radicalized but before the hammer comes down. Sure, if you got a dozen people together, you could convert and gather a hundred, that hundred could gather a thousand etc etc, but the second you have that dozen up in arms, the hammer is going to come down on them.

Most people would see you as crazed insurgents and would thus act appropriately.A small group of wannabe survivalists would hardly constitute an impressive force. At best, they will take potshots and kill a lot of innocent people. Who do you think you'll be fighting? Small man in grey suits? You'll be attacking anyone working in the public sector. That's the biggest problem with your argument. Revolutions and even rebellions are incredibly messy affairs. What you are proposing is both monstrous and delusional.

Damn, I sound like a broken record. I think this has been the third time in this thread that someone made a post about why a revolutions in the U.S would be pretty stupid.

Gergar12:

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.
image

No, but I think my 50cal will easily destroy the fins of those planes like in Syria via sniping, the tanks I use landmines, and weapnons from defecting us army troops, the attack helicopters I use once again weapons from defecting troops, and I will try to blend in to my city, and the B52s will I guess they will have to bomb a New York City, or Chicago, or whatever city I am located at while killing hundreds just to get to me. Oh, and guess what most defense industries take out those, and the army I doubt can guard all of them, and the government got no more planes, tanks, and ships. If the government were to fight a war against us, we would be better armed them the Vietcong, and those smart bombs won't take out everyone, and they are made through civilian defense contractors, which some will refuse to sell, others will be captured, and destroyed, or tow under ground to make weapons.

Keep dreaming my friend, maybe one day you'll be special enough for the entire US Armed Forces to attack you, and then you can fight literally all of them off single handed.

Gergar12:
No, but I think my 50cal will easily destroy the fins of those planes like in Syria via sniping, the tanks I use landmines, and weapnons from defecting us army troops, the attack helicopters I use once again weapons from defecting troops, and I will try to blend in to my city, and the B52s will I guess they will have to bomb a New York City, or Chicago, or whatever city I am located at while killing hundreds just to get to me. Oh, and guess what most defense industries take out those, and the army I doubt can guard all of them, and the government got no more planes, tanks, and ships. If the government were to fight a war against us, we would be better armed them the Vietcong, and those smart bombs won't take out everyone, and they are made through civilian defense contractors, which some will refuse to sell, others will be captured, and destroyed, or tow under ground to make weapons.

I didn't know every single Steven Seagal role ever shared an Escapist account.

Quaxar:

I didn't know every single Steven Seagal role ever shared an Escapist account.

"Every single"? You mean there was more than one? Color me amazed!

But um, yes, as it's been pointed out several times by now, there are just so many considerations when making the people count. I mean, if every "bar revolutionary" (it's an expression we use here, for people who go on and on about how the government needs ot be deposed, generally in their usual company over a bunch of beer in a bar) was willing to stick it through until the end, we'd have about 1.7 revolutions per month, and all...

Frission:

Gergar12:
/snip

You're speaking of your own personal opinion. You're not a spokesman for most gun owners. If there's one thing that I've learned is that there are some gun owners who are quite nice and find that shooting other American citizens would be insane and high treason.

First of all, you statistic of 89 guns per 100 people is sketchy. It also doesn't take into the possibility that people may have multiple weapons or that they just collect vintage weapons. It also doesn't take into account the fact that some of those guns are privately owned. News actually shows that gun ownership is on the decline and estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns.

So at best it's only half of the population. It's also unlikely that the military will join you.

Many people here have explained the logistics of a rebellion and how it would fail.

the clockmaker:
If you want to work out the manning of your insurgency, you're going to have to aim a bit lower than tens of millions
-First off, how many people in your nation are physically non-disabled. (this does not include people with things that will keep them from sustained operations, like the obese, diabetics, epileptics, people that cannot be relied upon to act in that crucial moment)
-Next, how many of those are physically fit and can actually navigate terrain in a high-intensisty situation. Sure you can get a thin bloke and he'll look cool carrying his tricked out armalite, but can he actually conduct fire an movement, or can he actually move stealthily (which is a lot more physically demanding than normal movement) when trained personnel are looking for him
-Next, you need people who are politically active enough that they give a damn about the issue spectrum that you are active in. Most people, so long as it doesn't harm their job are not going to care about say, the right seize government spending records.
-Next, they need to be politically aligned with you. More on this later
-Next, they need to be politically radicalised like you. More people will stamp and shout and wave signs than will ever be willing to actually bring the system down. Look at occupy, how many of those people are still actively continuing the 'struggle' and all they had to do was stay in one place
-Next they have to have access to a weapon, supply and ammo as well as the ability to maintain the weapon in the field. This is not the same thing as maintaining the weapon at home and you need to keep them in supply.
-Next they need to be willing to kill or die in pursuit of their radical beliefs, many will say that they are, but not many actually are.
-Next they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and destroy their own infrastructure. Essentially they have to be willing to shit where they sleep, because when an insurgent blows up a power plant, the army brings in generators and wraps up a bit warmer because they are trained for this, and civilians freeze to death.
-Next they need to know that an insurgency is happening and know that their goals align with yours. In a nation where a fair amount of people don't know the religion of the president, masses of the nation would see your 'glorious movement' as communist, the lefties would be calling it dictatorial and I'm sure some poor deluded folks would call you muslim.
-Next they need to agree that now is the right time, or that your movement is conducting the right methods or that essentially, if an insurgency is called for, you are the best bet. You will get a fuckton of people who will look at you and say 'well we do need to bring down the government, but not yet' Many will see your group as more Timothy McVeigh then Ho Chi Min.
-Next you need leaders to organize the whole thing, and they don't just pop out of thin air. PS-don't suggest your self for this.
-Next you need people staying power, another point to take from the Occupy movement. It got cold, they went home. Same thing, how many of your people are going to spend one night without food and decide the whole thing is bullshit. How many are going to see one mate get killed and decide never to pick up a weapon again.
-Next you need people who will not accept minor concessions as reasons to end the insurgency. Say, by way of example, you went to fight because the government legislated that every firearm you owned had to be registered with the federal government. By way of some miracle you got some sort of fighting force together and the government was worried enough to say 'okay, register it with your local police station who will be legally bound to keep it private from any higher level of authority unless that weapon is used in a crime' from there 90% of your people claim victory and go home, leaving you out in the cold.
-Finally you need to get all of this collated after the people are radicalized but before the hammer comes down. Sure, if you got a dozen people together, you could convert and gather a hundred, that hundred could gather a thousand etc etc, but the second you have that dozen up in arms, the hammer is going to come down on them.

Most people would see you as crazed insurgents and would thus act appropriately.A small group of wannabe survivalists would hardly constitute an impressive force. At best, they will take potshots and kill a lot of innocent people. Who do you think you'll be fighting? Small man in grey suits? You'll be attacking anyone working in the public sector. That's the biggest problem with your argument. Revolutions and even rebellions are incredibly messy affairs. What you are proposing is both monstrous and delusional.

Damn, I sound like a broken record. I think this has been the third time in this thread that someone made a post about why a revolutions in the U.S would be pretty stupid.

But the rebels would be shooting at a tyrannical regime, and would view it as such, and how is fighting a government that destroy everything America had stood for stupid, this is not the 1865 civil war, and it would not be monstrous, our founders did not think it would be.

Jayemsal:

Gergar12:

Jayemsal:
I so rarely get to pull this one out.
image

No, but I think my 50cal will easily destroy the fins of those planes like in Syria via sniping, the tanks I use landmines, and weapnons from defecting us army troops, the attack helicopters I use once again weapons from defecting troops, and I will try to blend in to my city, and the B52s will I guess they will have to bomb a New York City, or Chicago, or whatever city I am located at while killing hundreds just to get to me. Oh, and guess what most defense industries take out those, and the army I doubt can guard all of them, and the government got no more planes, tanks, and ships. If the government were to fight a war against us, we would be better armed them the Vietcong, and those smart bombs won't take out everyone, and they are made through civilian defense contractors, which some will refuse to sell, others will be captured, and destroyed, or tow under ground to make weapons.

Keep dreaming my friend, maybe one day you'll be special enough for the entire US Armed Forces to attack you, and then you can fight literally all of them off single handed.

No I am not trying to be Chris Dorner, and you misunderstood what's say, I also did not say I would be fighting alone, as their would be at least I. The high tens of millions if government decide to take away our freedom, and it not just the 2nd that is just being threaten.

Frission:

Gergar12:

thaluikhain:

Who are you including in that "us"? The people of the US as a whole, or certain small parts of it?

Do you know there are 89 guns per 100 people in the us, it's going to be allot bigger than certain small parts.

So you're saying all gun owners are violent nut jobs? That is not true.

It's more likely that those who will start shooting at other citizens are small minority of gun owners who give the others a bad name.

Again how is fighting q tyrannical government the task of a nut job, are you trying to troll me?

Gergar12:
But the rebels would be shooting at a tyrannical regime, and would view it as such, and how is fighting a government that destroy everything America had stood for stupid, this is not the 1865 civil war, and it would not be monstrous, our founders did not think it would be.

The rebels would see it as such, many many other people would not, or wouldn't think it was worth it.

Destroy everything America stood for? Yeah, not everyone is going to buy that. A lot of people believe, for example, that the US stands for democracy. Violently overthrowing a democratically elected government flies in the face of that.

Jayemsal:
This is 2013, the US government has drones.

This argument was over before it began.

Drones that require fuel and airfields and people to manage them.

Every single piece of equipment you showed requires a massive level of infrastructure and insane number of troops to man them. The US militaries teeth to tail ratio is already hugely skewed. In a real rebellion the US military's home base of operations is going to be in rebellion. What's worse is that the US military is not set up to defend against a rebellion. A huge number of military installations are built in the middle of nowhere and suddenly will require a large number of troops to defend them. Those tanks you showed off will rip up roads which will make logistics near impossible for many of those areas. Those bombers will destroy even more infrastructure which will make the logistical problem even worse since the US military does not build its equipment in one place. So, your expensive bomber gets grounded because it is in California and the part needed to fix it is made by a company in a small town in Colorado. And we are not even done.

The logistical problems that the military would face would be enough to give the rebels a chance. The most heavily armed states in the country are in the area around the Rocky Mountains. If the Rocky Mountain states rebel the country is cut in half and there is nothing you can do about it. If Texas goes then you lose your major oil refineries. If Alaska and the northwestern states go then you lose crude oil. If you lose the Midwest you lose a massive amount of food production. If you lose ONE manufacturing plant then there is no one else to make m16s and m4s for the US military (or at least not in large numbers at home). You take out 3 plants and you decrease American ammunition production by over 50% and North America counts for about 40% of the WORLD ammo production. And on.

Your equipment is irrelevant if you cannot use it. You are talking about using a massive level of force against very minor targets. This has been proven to be a bad idea. Usually such attempts have the effect of spurring even more people into action. Read reports about the effectiveness of strategic bombing during WW2 and Vietnam.

Gergar12:

Again how is fighting q tyrannical government the task of a nut job, are you trying to troll me?

It's a matter of PR. As long as an overwhelming majority of countrymen believe that the government isn't going to eat their kids, this kind of rhetoric will, in general, sound rather nutty. Now if an overwhelming majority of countrymen believe that the government is tyrannical, and by "tyrannical" I mean "they are repressing human rights, not giving a fuck about the people and generally not being above any means to stay in power", not "they stepped on my toes that one time", then it's a better chance a successful revolution happens.

But really, just what kind of a political system would you be in favor of? I mean, that's what a revolution is, destruction of a political system in favor of a new one.

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. The government tries to change one thing and everyone starts screaming about fascism. Yeah, the United States is a fascism in the same way that the UK is the Soviet Union. I wish some people in my country would realize that they don't know the first thing about being oppressed. Of course, some people actually think that the UK is like the Soviet Union for being socialist.

You know what this reminds me of? The Civil War. Lincoln just has to get elected and then the south throws a hissy fit about their slaves being taken away and split away before Lincoln even does anything about it. This really does remind me of people throwing a hissy fit.

erttheking:
This really does remind me of people throwing a hissy fit.

More or less, yeah. Same thing happened just before the election, people saying that if Obama won, it'd be proof democracy didn't work and they should have a revolution. Then, after he won, states should secede.

You might note neither happened, of course.

The other thing that stands out is there is no discussion of what government system would be better. It's just smashing things in the hope things will get better.

Gergar12:
/snip

I'm really cynical of "the millions fighting the government". Countries that were shaken during the Arab spring had real life dictators. The people of those countries some real issues worth making a revolution about and even then there was still some people who were trying to weather through it, without picking sides. There was also those who supported the person still in power. What do you think the chances are in the states that a overwhelmingly majority of people would get angry enough and capable enough to try an uprising?

You're saying that you would be righteous rebels and that you would be fighting off a tyrannical regime, but the problem is that it doesn't mean that everyone else will see you that way. The US isn't the most tyrannical regime since it just has the usual shit that most democracies have and some people will just label you as a bunch of terrorists.

If you're counting on the military, then you're setting up a military coup d'état. No taking into account what the average person and the rest of the world would think of a civil insurrection, how do you think they would respond to the start of a real military state? I don't know about you, but I doubt that most of the people in neutral and opposing parties will stand by and let that happen.

I'm also going to dispute what the founding fathers would have wanted, because no one knows what they would want to happen nowadays. I don't even know why they're worshiped so much in the states.

farson135:
/snip

I don't know that much about the military. You have put more thought into this. That being said I see some flaws.

Let's say that somehow there are enough people with the necessary skills and determination to fight and that they were coordinated enough to act together.
The rebels would have even greater logistical problems, because you're assuming that this would be at a point in time when a rebel group would have managed to organize themselves. The rebel group would have to organize fast enough to avoid attracting attention until too late and they would have to be there at most military installation. The military would seriously have to be off the ball if they were to allow that to happen. Rebels are also going to be as badly affected by any destruction in the infrastructure as well.

You're also assuming that a whole state would go, like in the old civil war. It's much more likely that you'll just have some individual discontents rising up.

That is one problem with the allusion to Vietnam. Civil wars are completely different from guerrilla wars and I don't know why there's the same constant comparisons. Civil wars are far, far worse. More blood is shed and there's nowhere for the government to pull out. Think less Vietnam and more Spain or Syria.

OT: I'll just take a post I made a while ago. In essence I think this discussion is stupid, Alot of people die in modern day guerrilla wars.
195,000-430,000 South Vietnamese civilians died in the war. 50,000-65,000 North Vietnamese civilians died in the war. In Algeria 400,000-1,500,000 Algerians died. 500,000 killed in the Spanish civil war.
It's not like they didn't have guns either. Some militants even had explosives and they still died in huge quantities.

Even if the whole issue of whether this was logistically feasible was resolved, it doesn't change that the whole idea is badly though out.
We can over piece by piece over whether a revolution would succeed or not, but in the end, the whole endeavor would be a massive and pointless waste of life either way, whether the revolution is viable or not.
There is no long term planning. What happens when the war ends and you're left with a broken down infrastructure, several people in puddles of blood and a lot of different factions vying for control? What could have been done, that couldn't have been done with a normal election?

The potential long terms effects and consequences are terrible, the reason for having this revolutions is vague and the loss of life would be high.
The end point is that just trying to have this revolution instead of perhaps having an election is childish. Just petition your local representative.

thaluikhain:

erttheking:
This really does remind me of people throwing a hissy fit.

More or less, yeah. Same thing happened just before the election, people saying that if Obama won, it'd be proof democracy didn't work and they should have a revolution. Then, after he won, states should secede.

You might note neither happened, of course.

The other thing that stands out is there is no discussion of what government system would be better. It's just smashing things in the hope things will get better.

It all just sounds like a symptom of a black and white Calvinistic worldview.

It reminds me of the Iraq war of all things. The aftermath can be so much worse than the war itself.

Frission:
It all just sounds like a symptom of a black and white Calvinistic worldview.

It reminds me of the Iraq war of all things. The aftermath can be so much worse than the war itself.

Normally, yes, but the US really does have WMDs. You don't want a civil war in a nation with a massive nuclear arsenal, whether or not it's the economic and political centre of the world.

And that's assuming there'd be an aftermath. The war could drag on indefinitely to no real end.

thaluikhain:

Frission:
It all just sounds like a symptom of a black and white Calvinistic worldview.

It reminds me of the Iraq war of all things. The aftermath can be so much worse than the war itself.

Normally, yes, but the US really does have WMDs. You don't want a civil war in a nation with a massive nuclear arsenal, whether or not it's the economic and political centre of the world.

And that's assuming there'd be an aftermath. The war could drag on indefinitely to no real end.

It's highly likely that other countries would intervene quickly unlike Syria, so you're right.

I wonder if I should just make a thread asking who actually wants to go to war.

Frission:
I wonder if I should just make a thread asking who actually wants to go to war.

Not a bad idea. I'd also want to know why, what they hope to gain, and how many people they think support them in their particular goals. How much thought they've put into it as well.

farson135:

Jayemsal:
This is 2013, the US government has drones.

This argument was over before it began.

Drones that require fuel and airfields and people to manage them.

Every single piece of equipment you showed requires a massive level of infrastructure and insane number of troops to man them. The US militaries teeth to tail ratio is already hugely skewed. In a real rebellion the US military's home base of operations is going to be in rebellion. What's worse is that the US military is not set up to defend against a rebellion. A huge number of military installations are built in the middle of nowhere and suddenly will require a large number of troops to defend them. Those tanks you showed off will rip up roads which will make logistics near impossible for many of those areas. Those bombers will destroy even more infrastructure which will make the logistical problem even worse since the US military does not build its equipment in one place. So, your expensive bomber gets grounded because it is in California and the part needed to fix it is made by a company in a small town in Colorado. And we are not even done.

The logistical problems that the military would face would be enough to give the rebels a chance. The most heavily armed states in the country are in the area around the Rocky Mountains. If the Rocky Mountain states rebel the country is cut in half and there is nothing you can do about it. If Texas goes then you lose your major oil refineries. If Alaska and the northwestern states go then you lose crude oil. If you lose the Midwest you lose a massive amount of food production. If you lose ONE manufacturing plant then there is no one else to make m16s and m4s for the US military (or at least not in large numbers at home). You take out 3 plants and you decrease American ammunition production by over 50% and North America counts for about 40% of the WORLD ammo production. And on.

Your equipment is irrelevant if you cannot use it. You are talking about using a massive level of force against very minor targets. This has been proven to be a bad idea. Usually such attempts have the effect of spurring even more people into action. Read reports about the effectiveness of strategic bombing during WW2 and Vietnam.

Yes, all your insurgency needs to do is to seize and hold large swaths of territory. And then, after that, all you have to do is win a war of fucking supply attrition against a force that , hint-hint, does not work hand to mouth. That is your plan, to supply attrit the US military. Stop talking, sit down, and think about that for a second.

I am so tired of explaining why this sort of thing will not work. Please read the quoted section as to why you will not have the numbers to pull this stupid idea off.

And the crack about strategic bombing? That is not a COIN tactic, that is a tactic that you use to wear down the strategic weight of another state actor. The military does not need to bomb you, stop being so arrogant as to think that you are that high up the threat scale, the military does not even need to get involved... If your movement were to kick off, at its peak it may merit a swat team or two with the national guard running perimeter work.

Jesus. I am so tired of people shouting 'supplies' 'non-conventional' 'insurgency' 'defection' and other words regarding an insurgent conflict with no understanding of anything relevant to the topic.

Gergar12:

But the rebels would be shooting at a tyrannical regime, and would view it as such, and how is fighting a government that destroy everything America had stood for stupid, this is not the 1865 civil war, and it would not be monstrous, our founders did not think it would be.
Again how is fighting q tyrannical government the task of a nut job, are you trying to troll me?

1- the US government is not tyrannical and to claim such to to show a complete disregard for the world around you
2-The rebels will think that they are fighting a tyrannical regime, other people will disagree, not every citizen will be on your side, that is why I had that long, long list of disqualifying factors that need to be taken into account.
3-I do not give a fuck what some dead pollies thought more than two centuries ago. Your founding fathers also thought that your nation would still have slaves.
4-I'm sorry, did you just say that this war would not be stupid, unlike the civil war?
5-No matter how much thought you have put into conducting an insurgency, the COIN policy makers put more thought into it. You know why? because it is their job.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked