News Chance of a dictator taking over the country

  • Thread starter Thread starter jobyts
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Military coups are more likely in countries with weak democratic traditions, as the loyalty of military personnel to a dictator is crucial for a takeover. Laws against mutiny and treason exist, but they may not prevent military leaders from conspiring in secret. In established democracies like the U.S., systems of checks and balances, along with oaths of office, are designed to deter such power grabs. The effectiveness of military force against civilians complicates the establishment of a dictatorship, as soldiers may hesitate to act against their own people. Economic stability and cultural attitudes towards authority also influence a military's willingness to engage in a coup, making it less likely in wealthier, democratic nations.
  • #51
No actually I wouldn't believe it :) I'm pretty sure the people wouldn't own harrier jump jets without getting all the perks that come with one. However the people that can afford those types of things could probably pay off who ever they need to if they wanted.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Armored-Personnel-Carrier-OT-64-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem336560f88aQQitemZ220744185994QQptZMilitaryQ5fVehicles#ht_599wt_1165

lol I didn't think I'd actually find one posted on ebay I have no clue how legit this actually is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Containment said:
No actually I wouldn't believe it :) I'm pretty sure the people wouldn't own harrier jump jets without getting all the perks that come with one. However the people that can afford those types of things could probably pay off who ever they need to if they wanted.

Well you can live in whatever fantasy world you like. I'll stick with reality. The US and the UK are not going to give civilians depleted uranium rounds and a variety of bombs and missiles. Period.

Whatever the public want to buy so far as these items go, they must be decommissioned.
 
  • #53
Phrak said:
The idea is to draw parallels between the US and Rome, which requires more than quick consideration.

Oh I got your point, but you need to actually make it, not imply it with the usual, "Fall of Rome" issue. Comparisons to Rome are so vague and can mean so much, that it's meaningless without a direct historical comparison. If you want to induce thought, you need to offer more, otherwise quick meets quick.

@Russ: I took it to be a statement of fact, not an endorsement to arm people. If anything, I believe it's a statement that such a thing is always pointless in the unlikely case (which has been posited) of a military coup. Nice try though, +1 for relentlessness.
 
  • #54
jarednjames said:
Well you can live in whatever fantasy world you like. I'll stick with reality. The US and the UK are not going to give civilians depleted uranium rounds and a variety of bombs and missiles. Period.

Whatever the public want to buy so far as these items go, they must be decommissioned.

Yep... it's not exactly a "maybe" issue either.
 
  • #55
Containment said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we do have the right to bear tanks they just aren't street legal *they would destroy the roads* or cheap enough for the average joe to own right? I remember hearing from so many people that have weapons you would never expect anyone to own with the permits to own them. I would be amazed if there isn't one really rich dude somewhere collecting tanks as a hobby.

There are rich dudes who own tanks, and they can even drive them around (in private land)! The main gun is filled however, all secondary arms removed, including much of the technology that makes a tank more than a big heavy coffin.

Oh, and they're not street-legal, and they sure as hell aren't the latest and greatest armour. It's also worth noting that modifying them is not a small felony.
 
  • #56
nismaratwork said:
Yep... it's not exactly a "maybe" issue either.

Can you imagine the conversation?

"So you want the F15, will sir be requiring air to air or air to ground missiles with that?"
"We've also got a good deal on ICBM's if you're interested."
 
  • #57
jarednjames said:
Can you imagine the conversation?

"So you want the F15, will sir be requiring air to air or air to ground missiles with that?"
"We've also got a good deal on ICBM's if you're interested."

:smile:

I can imagine how that ends! On the other hand, you can buy old ICBM SILOS... rather stripped-down though. :wink:


Oh man... the only people who get to talk about those kinds arms are national customers and security firms.

"Sir... would you like MIRV's with that, or will just the single RV be sufficient for your nuclear ambitions?" Hey, I guess I can imagine it! :biggrin:
 
  • #58
Containment said:
No actually I wouldn't believe it :) I'm pretty sure the people wouldn't own harrier jump jets without getting all the perks that come with one. However the people that can afford those types of things could probably pay off who ever they need to if they wanted.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Armored-Personnel-Carrier-OT-64-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem336560f88aQQitemZ220744185994QQptZMilitaryQ5fVehicles#ht_599wt_1165

lol I didn't think I'd actually find one posted on ebay I have no clue how legit this actually is.
Note the quote: "The vehicle will come demilitarized without any weapon system, and in full compliance with the US laws"
 

Similar threads

Back
Top