Conquer Club

Context/original sauce: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175074&start=180


_______________________________________________________________________________________

ANYWAY, A SUMMARY:

show

__________________________________________________________________________



(1) What do you think would greatly determine the effectiveness of an American revolution against the current US government?

(2) What kind of crisis would induce a popular American revolution?

Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

Lootifer wrote:Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

This usually holds true--unless a crisis occurs. Note: public opinion in the US before and after 9-11. All these extreme, divergent views held relatively the same for a huge majority of Americans.


Another question: what kind of crisis would induce a popular American revolution?

1. An insurgency is about capturing and holding ground so the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be mostly irrelevant. That means the insurgents would need to defeat 1.1 million active and mobilized Army personnel and maybe 100-200,000 Marines. If, throughout the insurgency, the U.S. maintained its current foreign force commitments you're looking at maybe 1/2 (?) that, so 650,000 men.

2. There are 75,000 police in New York and New Jersey all of which are unionized ... assuming it takes 3 soldiers to do the job of one policeman (soldiers need logistical support [housing, food, etc.] that civil police don't), a two-state police strike would tie-down 225,000 troops. If Texas and one other state joined in you would have close to the entire Army engaged in L&O operations in a small fraction of U.S. territory.

3. Then do whatever you like in the other 46 states until the federal government agreed to a negotiated peace. At this point you shouldn't need a popular uprising. I think if you had a few thousand 2-3 man cells lightly armed and moderately trained that should be sufficient?

So you'd need an Active Measures campaign that was effective enough that it could influence the Fraternal Order of Police to the point that at least a few states would agree to a 90-120 day work stoppage. Which would require a lot of $$$ and a good PR agency. Or, alternatively, a "real" event.

Hrmmm, maybe something around core christian beliefs and armmageddon/apocolypse...

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

This usually holds true--unless a crisis occurs. Note: public opinion in the US before and after 9-11. All these extreme, divergent views held relatively the same for a huge majority of Americans.


Another question: what kind of crisis would induce a popular American revolution?

If the government messes too much with the three things Machiavelli warned The Prince to never mess with of the citizens. Their property, their lives and their women.

Messing with property is not just real estate, a person's money is their property as well, a representation of their time and labor. Imagine the Central Government enacting property taxes on top of State property taxes. Over taxation can lead to revolution as it is messing with citizen's property.

Messing with citizen's lives is taking lives without due process. Mass false, illegal or immoral imprisonments. The barring of opportunity.

And nothing pisses people off than The King taking people's wives without abandon. Imagine "Droit du seigneur" or something along those lines. The US would rise up like bats out of Hell.

saxitoxin wrote:

1. An insurgency is about capturing and holding ground so the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be mostly irrelevant. That means the insurgents would need to defeat 1.1 million active and mobilized Army personnel and maybe 100-200,000 Marines. If, throughout the insurgency, the U.S. maintained its current foreign force commitments you're looking at maybe 1/2 (?) that, so 650,000 men.

2. There are 75,000 police in New York and New Jersey all of which are unionized ... assuming it takes 3 soldiers to do the job of one policeman (soldiers need logistical support [housing, food, etc.] that civil police don't), a two-state police strike would tie-down 225,000 troops. If Texas and one other state joined in you would have close to the entire Army engaged in L&O operations in a small fraction of U.S. territory.

3. Then do whatever you like in the other 46 states until the federal government agreed to a negotiated peace. At this point you shouldn't need a popular uprising. I think if you had a few thousand 2-3 man cells lightly armed and moderately trained that should be sufficient?

So you'd need an Active Measures campaign that was effective enough that it could influence the Fraternal Order of Police to the point that at least a few states would agree to a 90-120 day work stoppage. Which would require a lot of $$$ and a good PR agency. Or, alternatively, a "real" event.

There are 3 problems with this:
1. Your 3 soldiers for 1 police officer ratio seems to assume an attempt to maintain the same laws as the police maintains. In your scenario it seems likely some form of martial law would be declared thus using up resources more effectively
2. Your 2-3 thousand man guerilla army seems to assume a passive or even cooperative public. However if it isn't a popular uprising and with the state controlling the media, it seems that public oppinion will quickly become negative towards such a movement.
3. You're revealing this plan, therefore it must be an effort of disinformation. C'mon saxi, what's the real plan? We promise we won't tell on you.

Lootifer wrote:Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

The breakdown is like this.

40% Conservative
35% Independent
20% Liberal
5% "other

Yes, Americans vary in our views, but it's not as scattered as you think.

PS. America is around 310 million

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

1. An insurgency is about capturing and holding ground so the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be mostly irrelevant. That means the insurgents would need to defeat 1.1 million active and mobilized Army personnel and maybe 100-200,000 Marines. If, throughout the insurgency, the U.S. maintained its current foreign force commitments you're looking at maybe 1/2 (?) that, so 650,000 men.

2. There are 75,000 police in New York and New Jersey all of which are unionized ... assuming it takes 3 soldiers to do the job of one policeman (soldiers need logistical support [housing, food, etc.] that civil police don't), a two-state police strike would tie-down 225,000 troops. If Texas and one other state joined in you would have close to the entire Army engaged in L&O operations in a small fraction of U.S. territory.

3. Then do whatever you like in the other 46 states until the federal government agreed to a negotiated peace. At this point you shouldn't need a popular uprising. I think if you had a few thousand 2-3 man cells lightly armed and moderately trained that should be sufficient?

So you'd need an Active Measures campaign that was effective enough that it could influence the Fraternal Order of Police to the point that at least a few states would agree to a 90-120 day work stoppage. Which would require a lot of $$$ and a good PR agency. Or, alternatively, a "real" event.

There are 3 problems with this:
1. Your 3 soldiers for 1 police officer ratio seems to assume an attempt to maintain the same laws as the police maintains. In your scenario it seems likely some form of martial law would be declared thus using up resources more effectively
2. Your 2-3 thousand man guerilla army seems to assume a passive or even cooperative public. However if it isn't a popular uprising and with the state controlling the media, it seems that public oppinion will quickly become negative towards such a movement.

Wouldn't your #1 and #2 cancel each other out?

The FBI's defunct emergency plans from the '90s identified areas of the country to which mid-level remnants of the federal government could withdraw and garrison in a crisis. Three things seemed to disqualify a county (1) a large number of Mormons or Mexicans, (2) an active cell of the Posse Commitatus, (3) uncooperative police. For example, I've uploaded one file on areas in northern Idaho and eastern Washington here, note one representative passage on page 50:

"FOR PEND O'REILLE COUNTY, SEATTLE [Field Office] NOTES THAT THIS IS A RURAL COUNTY INHABITED BY STRONGLY INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS. THE SHERIFF IS STRONG AND ALWAYS AWARE OF EVENTS TAKING PLACE IN THIS COUNTY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF A LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP COULD BE A PROBLEM. MANY RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTY ARE MEMBERS OF SURVIVALIST ORGANIZATIONS."

So, IMO, the possibility of a weak-to-strong victory is viewed as conceivable at some level ... but I probably would be inclined to agree with you inasmuch as an uncooperative public - one way or the other - would probably neuter a situation like this ever developing. That is, I think it's highly improbable that a revolution would occur in the U.S. ever again, though it's certainly the fantasy of some corners of society.

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

The breakdown is like this.

40% Conservative
35% Independent
20% Liberal
5% "other

Yes, Americans vary in our views, but it's not as scattered as you think.

PS. America is around 310 million

My point was that you tend to need fairly extreme points of view, and sufficient momentum, to have an armed revolution.

Moderates, which in this context include everyone on this board afaik: you, me, BBS, JB, NS, everyone etc etc, dont tend to want to shoot anyone to get their point accross; its just not the done thing any more.

FWIW I wouldnt call Ron Paul getting elected a revolution either (even though he would likely change things radically - he aint shooting anyone to do it).

So getting back to my earlier point, every concievable issue that could potentially be a catalyst for revolution will have extremists on either side willing to kill and be killed for it; but -a- they are likely to balance each other out thus unable to actually cause any kind of change and -b- will have an impossible task of overcoming the massive amount of people in the middle who are unwilling to kill or be killed simply for an ideal - sure we might be unhappy with status quo but in modern times there are far less devastating and costly (in terms of human life) ways of going about creating change.

In other words: BBS ur a dumbhead.

The pieces of the answer to the OP's #2 question are being set into place as we speak.

Well, okay. I really was not supposed to tell anybody about this, but.....I guess it's okay now.

The revolution is already in motion. By August 6th most of us will know it's happening, and in less than 30 days, the entire world will know it is official.

RNC confirms Ron Paul will be up for nomination

House Passes Ron Paul’s ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill with heavy Bipartisan support

These 2 signals are the ignition for us to set off the 3rd and final signal.

I thought he was talking about armed revolution were you shoot the government and all their evil lackys?

Voting for some chump in the light of an economic crisis because he speaks a modicum of sense is about as revolutionary as wearing a tie on casual friday.

Lootifer wrote:I thought he was talking about armed revolution were you shoot the government and all their evil lackys?

Voting for some chump in the light of an economic crisis because he speaks a modicum of sense is about as revolutionary as wearing a tie on casual friday.

He asked about what events would set it off. Between the lines, my posts says the event is a US currency crisis.

Let me remind you, we are experiencing peaceful revolution. It seems like you keep on saying violence is the only way revolution can happen. Is that correct?

The point of the post has nothing to do with voting. Refer to the first line of the post, as I mention they are just pieces that are in place, as related to OP's #2 question. Maybe you can read it again, and the video has a lot of information that mentions nothing about voting or elections. In fact, I'm not sure anybody said anything about voting for anybody.

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:I thought he was talking about armed revolution were you shoot the government and all their evil lackys?

Voting for some chump in the light of an economic crisis because he speaks a modicum of sense is about as revolutionary as wearing a tie on casual friday.

Let me remind you, we are experiencing peaceful revolution. It seems like you keep on saying violence is the only way revolution can happen. Is that correct?

I have to agree with Lootifer on this ... when I hear the word "revolution" I take it to mean the overthrow and replacement of the government through a mechanism the overthrown government has classified as illegal (see: U.S. Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc.).

That said, the word "revolution" may also be used as a buzzword in advertising copy (see: "Pantene Pro-V - A Revolution in Hair Care", "the Ron Paul Revolution", "PACE: the 12-Minute Fitness Revolution").

The Ron Paul movement is only one part of the Revolution.
You guys did not grasp the full meaning of the post. More will be revealed soon

saxitoxin wrote:[list]1. An insurgency is about capturing and holding ground so the U.S. Navy and Air Force would be mostly irrelevant.

I'm not sure if this was an attempt to bait me or not, but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

Lootifer wrote:Moderates, which in this context include everyone on this board afaik: you, me, BBS, JB, NS, everyone etc etc, dont tend to want to shoot anyone to get their point accross; its just not the done thing any more.

Oh, I would SO shoot you. I'd shoot you hard.

Woodruff wrote:I'm not sure if this was an attempt to bait me or not,

it's safest to just assume every post I make is an attempt to bait you

*tickle tickle*

/Saxi tickles Woodruff/

Woodruff wrote:but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

In a set-piece battle. What about a domestic uprising in a country that produces its own weapons? If rebels take control of the Boeing plant in Wichita, a USAF supply line has been permanently cut. The Air Force can't recapture it, only ground forces can do that. If the USAF attacks it , they destroy the facility that's arming them. If they don't, they're denied access to the facility that's arming them.

Reliance on civilian contractors and placing military installations near cities make US forces seem very fragile when they're garrisoned inside the USA. Just this year one untrained painter single-handedly took-out an entire USN submarine with $9 in matches and lighter fluid.

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

In a set-piece battle. What about a domestic uprising in a country that produces its own weapons? If rebels take control of the Boeing plant in Wichita, a USAF supply line has been permanently cut. The Air Force can't recapture it, only ground forces can do that. If the USAF attacks it , they destroy the facility that's arming them. If they don't, they're denied access to the facility that's arming them.

None of that changes my point in the slightest.

i believe an American revolution would come from the midwest.

Woodruff wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

In a set-piece battle. What about a domestic uprising in a country that produces its own weapons? If rebels take control of the Boeing plant in Wichita, a USAF supply line has been permanently cut. The Air Force can't recapture it, only ground forces can do that. If the USAF attacks it , they destroy the facility that's arming them. If they don't, they're denied access to the facility that's arming them.

None of that changes my point in the slightest.

Great. So with the US Army and Marines tied down responding to burglary calls in Brooklyn, how is an A-10 squadron going to recapture - not destroy, but recapture - the Boeing plant in Wichita?

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

In a set-piece battle. What about a domestic uprising in a country that produces its own weapons? If rebels take control of the Boeing plant in Wichita, a USAF supply line has been permanently cut. The Air Force can't recapture it, only ground forces can do that. If the USAF attacks it , they destroy the facility that's arming them. If they don't, they're denied access to the facility that's arming them.

None of that changes my point in the slightest.

OK, so with the US Army and Marines tied down responding to burglary calls in Brooklyn, how is an A-10 going to recapture - not destroy, but recapture - the Boeing plant in Wichita?

I knew I shouldn't have treated it seriously.

Woodruff wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:but I'm going to go ahead and treat it seriously. Air power is actually considered, by current military doctrine, to be the most important aspect of a military's ability to capture and hold ground. If you control the air (which includes satellites, of course), you control the battlefield.

In a set-piece battle. What about a domestic uprising in a country that produces its own weapons? If rebels take control of the Boeing plant in Wichita, a USAF supply line has been permanently cut. The Air Force can't recapture it, only ground forces can do that. If the USAF attacks it , they destroy the facility that's arming them. If they don't, they're denied access to the facility that's arming them.

None of that changes my point in the slightest.

OK, so with the US Army and Marines tied down responding to burglary calls in Brooklyn, how is an A-10 going to recapture - not destroy, but recapture - the Boeing plant in Wichita?

So, anyway, now that you got that out of your system ...

As I said, air forces can't capture and hold territory. Ergo, the USAF would be useless in any situation where infrastructure must be preserved. Wars are fought to preserve or capture capital; a government will not order air strikes against its own infrastructure. Most likely, USAF personnel would be reformed into light infantry companies to pull sentry duty outside banks, factories, railroad depots, etc.

Lootifer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Lootifer wrote:Nothing; 280+ million people all with views ranging from extreme on one side to extreme on the other on every concievable issue will prevent any possible revolution.

The breakdown is like this.

40% Conservative
35% Independent
20% Liberal
5% "other

Yes, Americans vary in our views, but it's not as scattered as you think.

PS. America is around 310 million

My point was that you tend to need fairly extreme points of view, and sufficient momentum, to have an armed revolution.

Moderates, which in this context include everyone on this board afaik: you, me, BBS, JB, NS, everyone etc etc, dont tend to want to shoot anyone to get their point accross; its just not the done thing any more.

FWIW I wouldnt call Ron Paul getting elected a revolution either (even though he would likely change things radically - he aint shooting anyone to do it).

So getting back to my earlier point, every concievable issue that could potentially be a catalyst for revolution will have extremists on either side willing to kill and be killed for it; but -a- they are likely to balance each other out thus unable to actually cause any kind of change and -b- will have an impossible task of overcoming the massive amount of people in the middle who are unwilling to kill or be killed simply for an ideal - sure we might be unhappy with status quo but in modern times there are far less devastating and costly (in terms of human life) ways of going about creating change.

In other words: BBS ur a dumbhead.

Like I said, I don't think the underlined is impossible--sure, it's improbable, but not impossible.

@The Phatsco-Lootifer-saxi triangle:


Uh, guys, revolution ITT involves a political change with a good helping of blood and bullets. Ron Paul is not a revolution, although it's advertised as such--like Pantene Revolution and whatever it is that you young kids drink these days.