Is A Civil Overthrow Of A Modern First World Nation Possible?

Discussion in 'Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution' started by upside-down cake, Oct 23, 2015.

  1. upside-down cake

    upside-down cake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    5,457
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Is a civil revolution of a first world nation obsolete given the many types of weaponry and resources at the disposal of the State?

    If people decided to try and war with their state, would they stand a chance or would they be decimated?
     
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,508
    Likes Received:
    7,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting question.

    I would say yes, they could stand a chance. We've seen an example of that with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc. Although not "first world" they were close enough given that they had a monopoly on all weapons and resources. In other words, there was no way that an uprising couldn't have been put down with force. But what actually happened was the regimes were so delegitimatized that the people holding the guns realized that it was a joke.
     
  3. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    History has proven that the people will always prevail. A wise cowboy once said to me:

    "There ain't a horse that can't be rode nor a cowboy that can't be throwed."

    The people cannot win a war of attrition nor a one on one confrontation with the powers that be; however, using a myriad of avenues of defense (exhausting all non-violent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions) it is possible - and eventually likely that this government will be brought to its knees.
     
  4. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Depends on what you mean by a "first world nation". Most people think of a first world nation as a thriving, prosperous, industrialized nation with a market based economy and a stable democratic form of government and a judicial system which operates fairly - such nations are not prone to revolt by its people, and in fact enjoy the support of the people.

    Nations in which the people turn to revolution are nations which are under severe political and economic stress, and the rulers are not just unresponsive but dictatorial and unfair. The people are under such pain that they literally turn their backs on their life and resort to the ultimate rejection of the ruler - forcible eviction or even civil war. When a nation gets to that point, it is no longer a first world nation.

    There is no guarantee that in a civil revolution the military and police will side with the government. And when most (or all) the military and police side with the government the civil revolution operates as an insurgency just like Castro did in Cuba. More recently, Iraq and Afghanistan insurgents were totally outgunned by US and coalition forces, yet look how that turned out.

    Most revolutions involve a well armed dictator against a much larger but much less well equipped population, but often the population wins because they are determined to win and fight smart. Its Mark Twain's "its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog". Often the dictator and his forces want to go home at the end of the day, but the revolutionaries have no home to go to - the revolutionaries are totally committed, the govt forces are not.
     
  5. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would imagine they would probably receive help from an outside nation.
    Just think about what the U.S. does when it wants to overthrow a foreign government. The U.S. sends covert advisers and then they dump money and weapons to rebel groups. Sometimes they send in air support too, which basically renders the enemy's tanks and attack helicopters useless while the rebels occupy the ground. During the Vietnamese war, the Soviets actually trained Viet Cong soldiers to pilot Russian-built fighter jets.
     
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,631
    Likes Received:
    9,798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a small one, like Denmark or Ireland? sure.

    much harder for a big one like the USA, Britian, Germany, Australia, as there are lots of folks who would fight against the traitors.
     
  7. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's true in most cases but not all. The USA is unique in that it has a well armed and well trained population, with a large cadre of people trained in counter insurgency and with experience fighting insurgencies. The USA essentially already has the advisors and weapons in place - hence the "progressives" attack on veterans and the military, and the desire to confiscate firearms.
     
  8. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In this hypothetical revolution, who do you contend are the traitors?
     
  9. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the very early stages, its typical that both sides see the other as "traitors". That sometimes sorts itself out based on which side is trying to force its will on people who don't want to be forced, which side is causing the society to crumble, sometimes its all decided based on propaganda and lies.
     
  10. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And many who fight the other way.
     
  11. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,434
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Two big problems:

    1) America has never been so polarized. In order for a revolution to work, the majority of Americans would have to agree with it. Otherwise, it would jut be a civil war. There's no way that Americans would agree on anything in today's climate.

    2) The US military is just too good. As we saw with Waco, dreams of fragging (when soldiers and police turn against their leaders) just doesn't happen. Even if it did, nothing would stop a drone from delivering an ERW bomb and irradiating a base camp of rebels -- all done by a soldier in a cozy arm chair far away.

    In Europe, especially Spain, France and Germany, they take to the streets in thousands to voice their concern. In America, we wait for problems to escalate then complain about them in online forums. We're fat, lazy and docile, and victims of our own success.
     
  12. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of the trigger pullers i.e. combat infantryman, combat arms and special forces are White and conservative. So is the officer corps. Think again and think of the Spanish Civil War.
     
  13. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,434
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Waco..
     
  14. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hell, the ATF committed fratricide against its own members. They were so poorly trained that the entry team started shooting each other. That's what really happened.
     
  15. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,434
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What really happened contradicts what you said.

    An anti-government militia group was attacked by government forces. None of them switched sides to join the militia and fight against the government. The ATF and FBI had their marching orders and they did what they're trained to do.

    Putting your hopes in fragging is not smart, especially when the soldiers who you'll be fighting against are in a comfy armchair hundreds of miles away.
     
  16. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    44,184
    Likes Received:
    24,762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could you get the American Military to fire on Americans? The civil war suggests that the answer to that question is yes.
     
  17. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't happen that way and BTW the ATF retreated with their tails between their legs. The Davidians could have killed every one of them when they did. They didn't. Testimony by a number of experts including implicates fratricide with the ATF entry team. They were a joke.
     
  18. Pardy

    Pardy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,434
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It happened exactly that way. They destroyed the compound. It was razed. There was no point in staying.

    The only person who scurried away with their tail between their legs was Timothy McVeigh, who went on to kill over 160 innocent Americans. Shame they didn't get him too.
     
  19. QLB

    QLB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    11,696
    Likes Received:
    2,014
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Totally bogus. Even the AFT said the raid was a cluster &^*(. BTW the coalition couldn't control Afghanistan with 400K troops in a country the size of Texas.
     
  20. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    An immediate, open war? Probably not... probably not even with 95% of the population all armed with assault rifles united against the government/military, because technology in the hands of a trained few would still trump that. But a final push after a long insurgency, with at least 80% of the population behind it, that would probably result in the country not being a first world country before the final push? Probably.
     
  21. Statistikhengst

    Statistikhengst Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,857
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    This is correct. The other is revisionism. What a whacky world we live in...
     
  22. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is possible. Just depends on how many uniforms are willing to stand on the government side instead of the other side of the conflict, particularly the local police. America is far too large an area for the federal government to be able to cover all places. They are largely dependent on state and local LE to be part of the fight on their side.
     
  23. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    30,508
    Likes Received:
    7,759
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where in the world are you getting your history? Waco wasn't an "anti-government militia," it was a religious cult, and McVeigh was never there.

    Put down the Think Progress or where ever you're getting your misinformation.
     
  24. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    609
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anyone who has studied Richard Marcinko (former SEAL Team 6 Commander) and his approach to superior numbers and all the latest technology knows full well that you can defeat the technology by out-thinking the man behind the technology.

    Throughout recorded history we find that all great political changes did NOT come from the masses; they always came from a tireless minority. Jesus changed the world with a mere twelve apostles, while on the other side of the spectrum, Adolf Hitler nearly conquered the world with a nation no bigger than the size of Texas. Adding insult to injury, Hitler started with a few guys sitting around a table in a pub.

    America was founded when fifty six men challenged the mightiest nation in the annals of history at that time. Even going into the War for Independence, only a fraction of those people supported the notion of separating from the chains of tyranny that the masses had come to accept.

    “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Mark Twain
     
  25. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,788
    Likes Received:
    407
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's exactly what I meant when I referred to an insurgency, though perhaps you're disputing how many people it would take. Maybe if there were 20% rebels, 5% government, and everybody else as total bystanders you mean? Well-armed citizens can't just go out and face them though. They couldn't, early on, capture and hold territory like they would in an open war, unless the military just lost the stomach for it and joined them, but that's a separate argument since that wouldn't really be a rebel force taking down a 1st world army in their own country. An insurgency would be required in which military assets are destroyed over time or widely disabled before the government could be directly challenged.
     

Share This Page