321–330 of 957 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.
Have tanks ever rolled in on a human rights protest in the USA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion.…
The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents. The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.
This assumption did not work out for the Confederacy in the Civil War. What makes you think it would work today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same thing the original Americans did when protesting the massively better trained and armed British Army. Keep their wits about them and keep fighting. If anything the war in Afghanistan has proven that technology is no match for resilience and grit.
Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m from the mainland and totally with HK’s cause. But I do think the violence is at least unnecessary if not detrimental to the movement. If tanks roll in, there’s no point using violence as they’ll be crushed. If they don’t, it seems to me there’s enough space for peaceful protests, which can be even more effectual in many ways. And the people of Hong Kong have shown an incredible amount of creativity in non-violen…
> If tanks roll in, there’s no point using violence as they’ll be crushed There are many impromptu homemade devices that can be used to deter tanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue a sawed off double barrel 12 gauge with double / triple aught buck would reduce that down to a few feet. Problem would be how you train people to hold their cool
That cavalier attitude is what gets officers killed in bar fights. It takes a couple seconds to cross 21 feet. About what it takes to recognize the danger and raise the weapon.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/us/bronx-officer-shot-dead/in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion.…
It depends on their arsenal and their strategies. Guerilla tactics have proven to be difficult for even modern militaries. The US would have a high probability of defeating it's citizens in a conflict, but it wouldn't exactly be a walk in the park. They'd still be risking dead soldiers, disrupted supply chains, and money just to finance the thing. If citizens posed a credible threat, it might not be worth the time of…
I think they do- but we are so far removed from people actually caring about providing a credible threat as of now. Once people lose their access to basic amenities though, everything changes. And the type of people that do see the government as a threat now, already have organized militias, rudimentary training, military connections, and stockpile weapons and food. The right to organize into a militia is a constitutional right, and extremist elements have certainly been taking advantage of that.
And logistically speaking, we have very porous borders and inevitably foreign entities that would seek to assist an insurgency. The American Revolutionaries had the support of the French, and the Southern confederacy had the support of the British.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afghanistan is a fool's mission, not a war. If the US had the desire and stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan (gladly we do not), there would not be a lingering quagmire.
True. But if we don't have the stomach to wage total war against the people of Afghanistan, why do you think we'd have the stomach to wage total war against (a portion of) the people of the US?
It's not really technology holding us back, in either situation. Fear the day technology is good enough that the few can act without the restraint of civilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.
During the cold war, both Russia and the US developed a post-strike strike capability (basically a response if your enemy nukes you first which in turn destroys your enemy). The US called this a 'second strike' capability, and Russia called this the 'deadman's hand'. Most commenters since have simply referred to it as "mutually assured destruction" or MAD. Here's the thing - from an ethical standpoint, it never makes…
Everybody does not die in a nuclear war. You want your survivors to have a better chance. Leaving whoever nuked you mostly untouched is highly counterproductive to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion.…
We can't defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan... and that's just the size of Texas. The rocky mountains cover more area than AF; our borders are more porous (the Canadian border is the longest in the world); and our citizens have the most firearms in the world - total or per person (far more than AF or IQ). The US military cant stop insurgents from moving across the border with Pakistan, but they would be able to sto…
Even if Union's military was to use multimegaton nukes on rebelling cities, and red army kept 100% loyalty, the military would've still lost due to logistical exhaustion.
Armed forces rely on much more reliable supply train to function effectively than any kind of insurgent force. Armor and air force is useless unless fueled, oiled, armed and well maintained.