The difference being that in this case the poor are fighting amongst themselves before they revolt and are even arguing for the removal of their main means of revolt I.E. their guns
The people arguing for the removal of their main means of revolt are going to find themselves at a disadvantage fighting against the people who still have them
Drones are operated by people, require a vast supply network, and are actually pretty shitty at tracking people in forests, urban environments, or in rain or dust.
Specialist Jacobs can stare at the screen for hours, he still won't see it coming when the instant he goes to unlock the front door to his off post house, his neighbor comes up from behind and shoots him twice in the back of the head.
Assuming Jacobs is one of the few that isn't down with the insurgency.
C'mon, if malnourished and stupid hajis can do it, why can't educated, well nourished, Americans do it? Especially with help and training from veterans, defectors, and foriegn partners.
You don't gotta shoot them down. Granted, the Patriots would eventually get the hardware to do so.
You just gotta get the pilot, the fuel, or the little hut the controller sits in. Or the munitions, and that's assuming you can't sneak on post or someone inside doesn't sabotage it. We're not talking about an occupation or foreign insurgency, you know.
That sounds a lot harder than just trying to flash it so the pilot can't see and might crash it; fog would help, but those things have so many sensors they'd probably just switch views and see through the fog. You'd also have to figure out how to lose your heat signature and feign heat signatures... and somehow know the damn thing is coming and what direction it's coming from.
You remember our discussion from like a year ago about how I'd stop a tank? Yeah... the tank doesn't scare me near as much as the drone... the drone could just blow up the neighborhood before the tank were deployed.
heat signaturess arent like in the movies, even just a bit of plants thats been in the sun for the morning is enough to fuck with a heat sensor and it doesnt work from nearly as far as they show on tv. it also cant see through walls or other solid objects.
Aye... the fuel. Didn't think of that, which is funny, considering how much I've been going on about supply chains. As for the heat signatures, I know they don't work like that, but there are other things, such as night vision and, obviously, radar... plus satellites and recon planes.
Radar isn't going to be useful against a partisan force. They aren't going to be using tanks or heavy trucks that make obvious marks and chances are they aren't going to look any different on any sort of sensor system than any other person in the crowded urban environment and out in the rural areas you'd have to be specifically looking in specific areas to find them. 10 people spread over a football fields worth of area in camo and paint under foliage cover is going to be hard AF to notice on anything including radar and heat.
I'm talking about logistics and personnel. Actual combat would consist mostly of guerrilla tactics. Assassination, ambush, sabotage and propaganda. Fighting government forces head on would be stupid and unnecessary.
Hence why the entire neighborhood goes boom. As much as a strategic advantage as it would be to hold hostage to all my neighbors, that would defeat the entire purpose of whatever revolution I'm conjuring. The neighbors wouldn't happily let me be taken out, they'd actively encourage it. Convincing them to hold ground in the face of a drone? Well... I'd need them for the tank, but it also makes for a much bigger drone target, as by that same unity, you also wind up with a target that ends with a bomb blowing up most of the neighborhood.
And like... besides non-hostile hostages, even if you could blind the drone, what is really stopping it? Firing bullets into the air and hoping one hits a soft spot? The GD thing can just fly higher than a bullet would travel. I hate to say it, but you might have to line up Indiana Jones and have him kamikaze himself with it in an ambush and line that up with the temporary blindness. That shit ain't likely.
Famousone has a point to a degree. Drones are neither omnipotent nor are they’re of plaster. But current precedent is such that with any level of correct resources and some wit- one can still conduct military actions within drone airspace.
But what we forget here is that it is 2020. There are oh so many toys in production, in development, or on the horizon that make the whole bullets and drones argument kinda meh.
Microwave crowd control and other mass deployment “less than lethal” weapons could be used to high effectiveness against insurgency on home soil. necessity is the mother of invention- and in war it is a mother fucker. You won’t see so quick and profound an escalation of technology and tactics as when the home front is under threat. The sophistication of the weapons available to a wold power.... that’s if we do t even get into chemical or biological attacks or ways to hide those or mask them as something else.
We can’t say who would “win” in such a conflict- but with the current state of war- even the best militaries in the world can be defeated with sufficient man power (but numeric disadvantage), small arms and some form of demolitions and anti materiel weaponry, determination, and wit.
That said- we haven’t seen a major modern military power fight a war they couldn’t retreat from to a point of desperation. Terrorism and far off countries wars- when the blood gets too thick major powers who have little true stake cut bait and go home. But- when the fight is at home- or the stakes are the destruction of your government- you don’t just cut bait. So it’s that question- “how would Golf war 1” or “how would Vietnam” etc have gone if the foreign forces hadn’t gotten sick of wasting money and lives fighting?
We can’t really say. And perhaps- like WW2- when pushed to the edge- everyone just stops giving a crap about trying to play nice and says “screw it. Wipe swathes of earth off the map.” It’s unlikely any effective civilian resistance would survive a determined nuclear assault from its own government- but maybe- and what happens next? How does the rest of the world react? Can the separatists gain powerful allies? Blah blah.
Regardless- if you’re going to fight a war- even in 2020- at the bare minimum you’re going to need some guns. Your .223 AR likely won’t do much against tanks or drones or high altitude bombers or ballistic missiles or a destroyer or... blah blah. But st some point in the fight they’ll need to send in troops and you likely don’t want to be on the side that doesn’t have any guns.
Ambush a drone? Before it takes off maybe, but I was referring to ground forces and fixed targets. A second American Civil War would likely, much like the first, be drawn on political lines. I'm inclined to doubt that the right wingers would take up arms in a pro-government communist uprising, so it would conceivably be caused by a rouge government overstepping it's bounds in a big way, from excessive taxation up to attempt at genocide, with disarmament or forcible redistribution of wealth/abolition of private property and business being most likely. In which case, I forsee mass disobedience, at least 3 percent of opposition taking up arms, over half the military defecting or turning saboteur, and nations like Russia sending assets and advisors to get in good with the post-revolutionary order. Suppose the government does pull from the Obama playbook and use Hellfire Missiles on civilian heavy targets... No better recruitment call then innocent blood. Even works for haji.
My guess would be domestically they’d go for LTL suppression as the go to. Partially for those exact reasons. Keep the killing off the news. Your most dangerous armed factions and rogue reserves/NG units will likely be in more remote places. You can easily claim that 40 minute men around a tree stump was a fortified base making attacks on civilian targets and justify bringing down the hammer. Covers up easy and plays nice on the news.
All the good folks at home see the use of microwave barricades and rubber rounds etc. So to them it seems like the government is playing nice. Locals near the strikes might know the story- but guess what you do to enemy friendly towns? Remember- you blew up the “terrorists” for killing civilians. You might need some burnt up small towns and some dead civies to sell that no? Control the media- keep people away from combat zones “for their safety” of keeping autonomous strike targets under wraps.
Spin hard in the news- some false flag operations courtesy of our friends from the agency with some hand picked operators or PMCS on loan- what’s the enemies uniform? Street clothes aren’t a uniform. If they are wannabes or NG defectors they’re in our colors- maybe without patches. Not hard to spoof and civil war+no uniform for enemy combatants+easy deniability? You can no problem pull some shit to pin on them and turn the public, have them begging you to MOAB the Midwest because of what “they’ve” done. Or easily enough say your guys in film are their guys executing civilians etc.
We know from Central Asia and South America, the Mid East and Eastern Europe that collateral
Damage doesn’t make friends in the public. Every modern war since Nam has hinges on the media as much as on the battlefield. The rick would be in keeping MOST people on your side. Since the majority of the population lives in Urban centers that are far more likely to sit out revolt or side with whoever is the established power- the numbers get shakey. But who’s going to back the separatists as far as international allies?
We wouldn’t like it- but if the US government was on the ropes- they’d call in backup. They can control the sea, a good deal of the land, totally have air superiority.... it’s POSSIBLE to win that fight but unlikely. You basically best case end up with US Al Qaeda- 50 years of guys in the “wastes of the Midwest” causing some trouble, radicalizing the occasional college kid, maybe getting agents inside cities and government jobs- and once in awhile blowing up a military base or maybe just the PX....
But that’s part of the problem right? How do you go from domestic terrorist to civil war? The guerrilla army can’t attack civilian infrastructure- shipping lines, commerce etc. attacking bases... those are military targets but you’re still killing Americans- people’s sons and daughters.
They wouldn't start the fight, you see. People aren't going to take up arms for shits and giggles. There'd be an event provoking such a response. I have already detailed likely circumstances, as the question of ceding from the union has already been settled.
Disarmament or abolition of private property. Or something similarly extreme. Federal ban on meat and butter, maybe?
Government forces will defect en masse. Over 50% easily, and most of those will be combat troops and enlisted.
There will already have been divisions, lines drawn.
Nobody's talking about blue collars starting a civil war, it will have been initiated by the government, especially considering that working Joe's like their lives, even if college dumbasses are calling for authoritarianism.
Infrastructure? Commerce? Shipping? The guerillas wouldn't have to destroy any of it, it's already theirs. GI Joe? If he's a traitor who'd forsake his oath, he'll be outnumbered by the true patriots.
If I were ordered to fire on Americans refusing to give up their arms or livelihoods... I'd have probably defected long before that point. But if Uncle Sam did manage to keep a lid on it (impossible in the age of information), and I was put in that position, well... I didn't enlist to disarm Americans, pay for someone else's Gender Studies degree, or to bring communism to the States.
Angels on our shoulders. If you don't know what that means, you've already lost. Air superiority > all; even nukes. I know I've said this before and I know you both know I've said it; war isn't so much about mass killing as it is making the enemy bend to your will. You'll always have the exceptions, such as true religious war, but one of those comes around about twice a millennia.
Yes. There can be context and precedence in history- but we can’t go overboard. In the case of revolution- it’s important to remember that changes in economics and technology often fuel or enable revolution- but we also have to remember that two primary conditions of revolution are:
1. Reliance- when the elite do not serve a measurable function or contribution to the lives of the Masses. The farmers far from the City are little effected by the elite usually- less likely to care for who sits on the throne since things tend to stay the same for them. Given reason to revolt however- they have the most security to do so as they are so removed that to give up whatever it is the established powers does for them is essentially not a sacrifice.
The white collar worker abused by the system is more quickly and deeply effected by the abuses of the elite, but also has more to give up and greater immediate risk. This is more likely to call for revolution (or grumble of it at least) while standing still.
2. Control. Partially related to 1, beyond the people’s perceived need or benefit from the aristocracy or elite- revolution generally requires a loss of control. As much as we love fiction- meaningful popular revolution within well ran totalitarianisms is a rare thing in history- outside perhaps revolutions such as the military coup.
When an elite class controls and maintains the primary streams of information- revolution becomes far less likely. Traditionally one of the most disruptive inventions to established order has been major milestones in communications. Being able to control a population- usually through direct and indirect means is a self evident prevented of revolution.
So in a “universalist” sense we know that when there is major technological or cultural shifts- this will almost always bring change to the world- and we know that change without careful management introduces instability, and we know that revolution finds its roots at the intersections of motive and opportunity- with instability being both an intuitive source of opportunity as well as a historical precedent for past revolutions (some- not all...)
But where we cannot be universal is in applying the logic that if you drop 1+1 water balloons on someone 3 days ago and they got wet- that if you drop 1+1 pillows on them today- they are likely to get wet.
We have a far more urban/suburban and industrial culture than almost anywhere at basically any point in history. The number of people who rely upon those in “elite” positions of society is much greater- we aren’t talking about a warlord who provides protection from barbarians of the wild or a land owner who protects against bandits: who we oust if having them is worse than dealing with the threats ourselves. We are talking about a vast number of the population who relies upon the systems in plane and stability of society for their lives and very survival.
As technology improves, as cameras and the ability to see and hear threats improves, as weapons progress to things like “less than lethal” mass control devices like the microwave barrier weapons and such in labs around the world, and as robots and automation improve....
We have to look forward not just back- because we are approaching the first time in history where a king may not need an army of serfs to grow their food or produce their clothes or clean their homes and serve their needs. From castles to gated communities, exclusive clubs and private islands- to the Kong’s and queens- the poor are a nuisance. Traffic, pests, carriers of disease. A necessary evil to provide for those at the top of the pyramid- a base to stand on. Where and when able- most prefer to shit out the unwashed masses- pretend they don’t exist while enjoying what they provide.
But when it is cheap enough, effective enough, to use machines who (outside sci-fi) the issues of revolt or treachery of disloyalty, theft, laziness and complaints do not exist for- and when 200 machines can be repaired by 10, and those ten repaired by one, and for 1,000 machines those 5 that repair the fixers can be tended by a single human when all else fails- why do we NEED billions of extra people to complain, take up space and resources, stop those who could otherwise donas they want from doing whatever they want?
The wealthy aren’t so foolish to history. Our systems adapt. Those things that are universal in history are those things that are self evident. We could use universalism-show that some narration of “class,” some form or a pyramid in which many make the base and fewer make the levels to the “top” with distribution or power decreasing towards the base- has existed. We could point to the fact that the so called “classless” communism has never managed to exist- that even the grand designs of the communist experiment produced corruption and entrenchment, dynastic privilege, nepotism, and a society where not every person receives an equal share or even an equivalent share let alone voice.
But we don’t have to- we can look at today. We can look at our lives, we can look at our own selves if we dare- and we can see why “classless” society fails- because that is a self evident truth of human nature. Someone always wants more.
So then- these things are somewhat constant- not immutable, which makes them not universal- but near so for all intents. And we could say “but look- the wealthy treat the poor masses badly and then... revolt!” But the excesses and abuses are CAUSE of ANGER, anger doesn’t require or always end in, revolt. The wealthy aren’t seeking to end the excesses of power and prevent your hurt feelings- the quest is for a system of perfect control- one which allows the indulgence of the privileged but removes the fear of revolt- not the CAUSE. You can be as angry as you like and it doesn’t hurt Bill Gates. It hurts Bill Gates if you storm his home, or if the world refuses to do business with him- but that requires the world to agree to go without and to put in effort to not be beholden to him. Our current system of control in the developed world banks heavily on information control and complacency from the masses. The complacent don’t revolt.
That’s a universalism- that as a general rule a human must feel they have more to gain than to lose from risk, or the consequences of failure on the wager are effectively non existent. Most of the developed world- even the downtrodden masses- feel they have more to lose than gain- or that the consequences of failure against the odds of success are a poor bet.
Our technology, our knowledge of social engineering, behavior, drives, psychology, our methods of propaganda and defining perceptions, and the study of historical precedent have evolved to a level where those in power have more control than ever, on a larger scale than ever- to the point that you simply cannot go anywhere or almost anywhere on earth to avoid their grasp if you are at odds with the most powerful people on earth.
Russia has proven time and again that if they want you dead- you cannot be safe. America has recently assassinated a high ranking member of a foreign government with a button push thousands of miles away. Israel has tracked and judged Nazis against the efforts and wishes of some of the most powerful nations on earth- on their own soil.
The systems aren’t perfect yet- but we may we’ll be approaching a point where there is near total control to the point that we see an historical reversal- where the mob at the bottom of the pyramid no longer has strength in numbers.
Specialist Jacobs can stare at the screen for hours, he still won't see it coming when the instant he goes to unlock the front door to his off post house, his neighbor comes up from behind and shoots him twice in the back of the head.
Assuming Jacobs is one of the few that isn't down with the insurgency.
C'mon, if malnourished and stupid hajis can do it, why can't educated, well nourished, Americans do it? Especially with help and training from veterans, defectors, and foriegn partners.
You just gotta get the pilot, the fuel, or the little hut the controller sits in. Or the munitions, and that's assuming you can't sneak on post or someone inside doesn't sabotage it. We're not talking about an occupation or foreign insurgency, you know.
You remember our discussion from like a year ago about how I'd stop a tank? Yeah... the tank doesn't scare me near as much as the drone... the drone could just blow up the neighborhood before the tank were deployed.
Damage doesn’t make friends in the public. Every modern war since Nam has hinges on the media as much as on the battlefield. The rick would be in keeping MOST people on your side. Since the majority of the population lives in Urban centers that are far more likely to sit out revolt or side with whoever is the established power- the numbers get shakey. But who’s going to back the separatists as far as international allies?
Disarmament or abolition of private property. Or something similarly extreme. Federal ban on meat and butter, maybe?
Government forces will defect en masse. Over 50% easily, and most of those will be combat troops and enlisted.
There will already have been divisions, lines drawn.
Nobody's talking about blue collars starting a civil war, it will have been initiated by the government, especially considering that working Joe's like their lives, even if college dumbasses are calling for authoritarianism.
Infrastructure? Commerce? Shipping? The guerillas wouldn't have to destroy any of it, it's already theirs. GI Joe? If he's a traitor who'd forsake his oath, he'll be outnumbered by the true patriots.
1. Reliance- when the elite do not serve a measurable function or contribution to the lives of the Masses. The farmers far from the City are little effected by the elite usually- less likely to care for who sits on the throne since things tend to stay the same for them. Given reason to revolt however- they have the most security to do so as they are so removed that to give up whatever it is the established powers does for them is essentially not a sacrifice.