Would Revolution Work?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

No, this is something completely separate from the "I Welcome the Revolution" thread.
---------------------
All of these self-proclaimed intellectuals here, and elsewhere, like to claim that one of the Right and Middle's excuses for the Second Amendment (needless to say, I'm referring to United States politics) is that an armed populace can rise up in revolt if they feel the government needs to be replaced.

They argue that military technology is too powerful in comparison to civilian technology.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What, did they all forget that there was heavy artillery back during the American Revolution, that the government's forces had easier access to? It was called cannons.

VIETNAM WAR
American forces, armed with all sorts of fancy technology (helicopters, bombers, etc.) suffer over 30,000 casualties through the course of about one decade. The enemy was a meager force of irregulars armed with rifles, backed up by the ChiComs.

WAR ON TERROR
American forces are winning, but the terrorists are still holding out and doing more damage than they "should". We have bombers, tanks, even Land Warrior! Even so, the terrorists still exist to this day.

Just two examples. Now, I'm going to give you three hypothetical scenarios: an insurrection in my home region (Cumberland Plateau), an insurrection in a major city, and a total civil war (in this case, Middle vs. the Coast).

THE CUMBERLAND PLATEAU TAX REVOLT
Every family I knows owns a gun, either a hunting rifle, a pellet gun/BB gun, or a pistol. My own family owns a pellet gun, BB gun, and a pistol (my father's firearm from when he served as a police officer).

The revolt begins with the US Military sending cavalry and infantry along the interstates and highways. National Guard Reserves throughout the plateau suffer from large-scale desertions as the men return to their families. Partisans sabotage the major roads, slowing down Loyalist progress.

If the government makes it up the plateau, they now face:
1. A large number of partisans, many of whom know how to use their weapons.
2. A smaller number of deserters, trained with military experience.
3. Home-made weapons.

You may remember: the terrorists in the Middle East use improvised explosive devices.

Okay, assume now that there is a caravan of tanks and howitzers moving up the main road in my hometown. That's unbeatable, right? They have tanks! We just have our redneck huntin' guns!

Well, people where I live like to make potato cannons. You could fashion a bazooka out of a Molotov cocktail (or, more likely, black market explosives) and a potato cannon. I have little faith such a thing would work, due to the sheer amount of armour on a tank, but it might be able to. Mines could be laid. There's a reason why so many casualties in Iraq are caused by IEDs.

Furthermore, the tanks would be almost useless. In a forest environment like where I live, the soldiers would have to get out and go searching for the rebels. There, they'd be exposed to guerilla fire.

Ah, planes. Surely, with air support, Loyalist forces would be unstoppable, right?
The US tried bombing Cambodia into non-existence. It was working (we would have won the war if not for the anti-war movement), but we weren't fighting OUR OWN PEOPLE. You can bomb an entire state into ashes, but what is the benefit if by the end you must deal with millions of refugees? Even more important, if you bomb a trailer or a house partisans up here are hiding in, they will just "go camping", moving into the woods.

And, on a side note:
It might be better just to stay on the ground, but where I live one could take biplanes and outfit them with machine guns. It'd probably be more like a suicide attack than Red Dawn, though.

A CITY REVOLT
I don't live in a city, so I can't imagine a battle for one as clearly as I can my own home region. But, here's a few things to think of:

1. Cities are generally more important than towns.
2. Cities are easier to "break": striking a refinery, a factory, or any of the right buildings might spell disaster.
3. Cities have lots of roads.
4. Cities tend to have airports.
5. A city actually is a better spot for a guerilla battle, given the number of places to hide.

THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
Here, I'm assuming it's the "Middle" vs. the "Sides".

1. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to serve in the military than "Sides" people.

2. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to own firearms than "Sides" people.

3. The South had little industry back during the Civil War. Now, it has industry.

4. The breadbasket of the United States is the "Middle".
 

DeletedUser

If US citizens want to revolt against the current government, there's already a system in place for that. Just vote for someone else. If you aren't able to vote because of your age or other reasons, you can still campaign for a candidate. If there isn't anyone you think would be a good person to elect to office, who do you think would be in charge if there was a successful revolution?
 

DeletedUser

I think I can say with absolute certainty that "Middle America" would be less effective against our own military than the Iraqi terrorists.
 

DeletedUser8950

Thomas, I have nothing to say to that block of crap but "what the hell?"
 

DeletedUser

"Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again.
That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes."
-Terry Pratchett


As usual your posts are naught but a pile of crap Thomas.

And what that I bid you good bye, good evening, and good riddance!
 

DeletedUser

Thomas:

That is pretty much bullcrap.

Also, you'd be up against missiles that can follow you down a flight of stairs, bullets that can change direction at will, literal force fields, sound waves that can make you burst into flames*, and unmanned robots that can kill you. Autonomously.

For more OMGWTFBBQ goodness, read this: Boom.

*It is intended to make you run as fast as you can, but it has the danger of doing so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

THE SECOND AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
Here, I'm assuming it's the "Middle" vs. the "Sides".

1. "Middle" people tend to be more likely to serve in the military than "Sides" people.
As usual, you fail to do your homework. The "middle," as you call it, accounts for less than one/third of all military recruits.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/State+Military+Recruitment+Rates

As to the rest of it, you fail to understand some very basic things:
1. The present government was elected into office by the MAJORITY. Therefore, if a minority attempts to start a war, they will lose not merely because the government's military will surely close them down, but because the MAJORITY of Americans will close them down.

2. The assumption of a revolution requires a valid reason, and losing an election by a landslide is not a valid reason.

3. At present there are some racist, ex-KKK groupies starting these rebel alliances, comprised of pocket change for brains and insufficient experience to get themselves out of a traffic ticket.

4. A war within the United States is a lot easier to manage, due to the detailed information on people, places, and things. In addition, the travel features and technology web poses a distinct advantage to whomever controls such. In this case, that's the Majority-backed U.S. Government, not a bunch of guys married to their mother's sisters.
This thread is closed and I don't want to see another one like this, especially considering other posts you presented regarding your willingness to pose violence, cause harm to others, and essentially kill other citizens of your country. Certain discussions are acceptable, these are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top