stjames1_53 (11-29-2021),The Booman (11-29-2021)
You start out with "In this nuclear age." Why do you think that is relevant? The Warsaw Pact collapsed and the Soviet Union was overthrown whilst in possession of nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and has virtually autonomous regions that are not controlled by the central government.Originally Posted by Metal God
I'd say that's pretty dangerous. When it goes mob violence against the government, that's mass disobedience and society breaking down. The government cannot hold for the most part in such a situation if the citizenry is armed.Originally Posted by Metal God
It gets you nowhere in most democracies these days too.Originally Posted by Metal God
Both sides of what?Originally Posted by Metal God
We already dealt with them. We dropped nuclear weapons on them.Originally Posted by Metal God
So you mean like Xi Jinping? Chronic mass disobedience is probably the only way. I don't know why you think nuclear weapons are relevant. You cannot drop nuclear weapons danger close without killing yourself. So if you're a tyrant, why do you think you could resort to nuclear weapons during civil unrest? I don't follow...Originally Posted by Metal God
If you're talking about a singular leader, possibly assassination. However, fascists would likely excise reprisals against the population.Originally Posted by Metal God
Storm the parliament while it's in session, but do it with weapons. Lock the doors from the outside. Do the same to adjacent buildings, because they all have escape tunnels. You can't stop something like a French Revolution, because it basically comes down to people no longer being intimidated by violence, imprisonment or death.Originally Posted by Metal God
We are? I think a lot of people would disagree. You know you can edit your posts, right? Or maybe come up with a complete thought before posting? I don't think governments are going to see a difference between violence and non peaceful protesting.Originally Posted by Metal God
Protesting the government and pretending you are protesting the government but you're really working for a political party aren't the same thing either.Originally Posted by Metal God
Antifa Member Who Took Axe to Senate Office Given Probation and his Axe Back
The government reacts very differently to someone who chops a senator's door with an axe when the senator is a Republican compared to when a fool makes a fool of himself on the senate floor toward an incoming Democrat president who many think stole the election. The axe swinging guy gets probation, a fine and his axe back. The fool gets four years in prison. There is a difference, but I think the difference is that the government/political parties are in on some of the violence, so it goes largely unpunished.
Well, it's CNN. So that's part of the problem. You're probably getting a "They're killing their own people" line, like they used to say about Saddam Hussein or Hitler. Xi Jinping is not a Uighur. Hitler was not a Jew. Saddam was not a Kurd. People tend to kill people they view as "other." They don't typically risk their lives to save the "other."Originally Posted by Metal God
The Booman (11-29-2021)
Cotton1 (11-29-2021),stjames1_53 (11-29-2021)
stjames1_53 (11-29-2021),The Booman (11-29-2021)
`If the grid were destroyed, it wouldn't take long before an "old fashioned" revolution would take place, but that's unlikely, so those who seek to change society now--in Russia or China--would need to do it through more acceptable channels, becoming part of the powers-that-be and then working from within.
""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw
China just went through a bunch of power outages affecting businesses and the citizenry. While it hasn't had any obvious revolutionary effects, the government of China acts increasingly hostile toward Taiwan--probably the external enemy is held out to maintain internal cohesion. This suggests a serious lack of internal cohesion.Originally Posted by FindersKeepers
Lots of anti-imperial revolutions have also taken place. India won its independence from the United Kingdom. While India's independence was at least rhetorically embracing non-violence, Ireland won its independence and used violent means and terrorism, particularly when the United Kingdom had bigger fish to fry during WWI and WWII.
Algeria won independence from France when France had nuclear weapons. Watch the movie "The Battle of Algiers." It's old school, but it gives you a good idea of what that type of conflict looks like.
I think Metal God's subordination of this to a "nuclear age", as though that precluded resistance, is kind of a big flaw in establishment thinking. I've even heard American politicians saying this, like Joe Biden and Eric Swalwell. The idea that nuclear weapons have any utility in a revolutionary context is bizarre to me.
Biden mentioned F-15s and nuclear weapons in reference to 1/6. What would you do in the case of 1/6? Drop nuclear weapons on the Capitol to nuke the protesters? You'd kill every Congressman, Senator, and the sitting Vice President, probably the sitting president, and the entire Supreme Court if it were in session. Does that sound like a militarily sound response?
I get that Metal God is a bit of a parrot of Democrat party rhetoric, but I find it baffling that people actually think nuclear weapons have a great deal of utility outside of their context in WWII--that is, the enemy shoots down 25% of your bombers on every bombing run, and you're lucky if you hit 20% of your targets, but you are desperate to destroy their war-making capability. So you drop one massive bomb on an area you want to destroy, and that solves your problem--however, it creates many more: 1) a nuclear arms race; 2) an ethical dilemma that you kill far more non-combatants than morally necessary; 3) you leave nuclear fallout that long outlasts your military objective; 4) you introduce the possibility of nuclear annihilation--to name a few.
What pray tell would make a nuclear weapon useful during civil unrest? Even Saddam Hussein was reported to have used VX nerve agent, which killed people and livestock, but left infrastructure in place.
Police forces could use live ammunition against protesters, but rarely do. Why? It increases the outrage. So they use non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets, bean bags, tear gas, water cannons, etc., which also tends to piss people off, but not enough to generate the outrage that leads to overthrow of the government.
I think you are correct that working from within would be the approach, but that's also scary. Think of Pakistan. It's government, including the ISI, is full of Taliban sympathizers. What if the Taliban types take over the government and gain control of nuclear weapons? That's where I think you could see a situation where nuclear weapons might get used on civilian "infidel" populations in big cities. Otherwise, I just don't see them has having any real utility. They're just a nihilists wet dream at this point.