News Chance of a dictator taking over the country

  • Thread starter jobyts
  • Start date
Re: Dictatorship

But the lesson for the superpower that is the US, that we have learned time and again, is that in order to really win a war and take control of a country, it still happens house by house.

How many times have we seen inferior forces hold armies at bay? Beyond that, an armed populous allows the time needed for alliances for form between The People and defecting military forces. The strawman is the assertion that you can't win a war with small arms. You don't need to. You just need to survive long enough for the landscape to change.
No, we've just forgotten that war used to involved surrender or annihilation... you only need to go house by house if you care what others think of your endevor. Know that rebellion = Decimation (literally, in the Roman sense) is a very powerful tool to induce order. Edit (for example: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Berlin, etc...)

You have to seperate winning a war, and controlling a country; they are utterly different.
"In war there can be no substitute for victory, war's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." (Gen MacArthur re: Korea)

Control is a different animal, and rarely necessary of the former advice is followed.
 
2,662
20
How difficult would it be to blockade a city in the US and effectively starve the enemy out (no electric, no food input, no fuel input etc)?
 
How difficult would it be to blockade a city in the US and effectively starve the enemy out (no electric, no food input, no fuel input etc)?
For the military, or for civilians?... and why besiege when you could destroy?


Still, for the military it would be easy, there is in fact a plan to do that... just not as a coup, and not to starve people. We call it, "quarentine", and hope it doesn't have to be used, but the means exist, although you'd have a chance of escape unless air assets killed anyone fleeing, and you set snipers around any exits.

For civilians, I can't imagine how it woud be accomplished, or why.
 
2,662
20
For military.
 
For military.
Well, you'd have to ignore all kind of laws and training, but if the people in the military were willing, then it would not present a problem. You have to be willing to kill anyone who attempts escape, defection, and outside help from possible air-drops.

So... yeah, it could be easily done, but it would be a very cruel thing to do. Remember, a quarentine does kill or contain if you try to escape, but that's extreme and something you'll find soldiers will do. Warriors are often afraid of germ and chemical warfare, and if killing a town is what it took to save the country, and it was 'made legal'... yeah.

In reality, besieging a town or city would be much MUCH harder than leveling it, which could be rapidly accomplished, or nuking it with a conventional nuclear warhead, or something like a "neutron bomb", or just a highly raidioactive series of air-bursts, with low explosive yield. There are also chemical agents which could be used to "pacify" a town if you didn't care about casualties.
 

drankin

How difficult would it be to blockade a city in the US and effectively starve the enemy out (no electric, no food input, no fuel input etc)?
It would tie up an enormous amount of military resources. You are talking about one city. We have thousands of cities acrossed thousands of miles. At some point additional supplies would be needed that are currently manufactured by civilians. Liken it to a snake eating it's own tail.
 

drankin

And then there is the enormous rural population to consider.
 
107
0
Re: Dictatorship

But the lesson for the superpower that is the US, that we have learned time and again, is that in order to really win a war and take control of a country, it still happens house by house.

How many times have we seen inferior forces hold armies at bay? Beyond that, an armed populous allows the time needed for alliances for form between The People and defecting military forces. The strawman is the assertion that you can't win a war with small arms. You don't need to. You just need to survive long enough for the landscape to change.
Assuming there are bullets available?:rolleyes:

(sorry-just label this IMO to save time)
 
Re: Dictatorship

Assuming there are bullets available?:rolleyes:

(sorry-just label this IMO to save time)
Not a bad point really... a gun without bullets is like a gun without its owner: useless.


JarednJames: OK, I've answered to the best of my ability so... why do you ask? I can imagine a quarentine without shutting off services, and without an intent to besiege, and I could imagine annihilating a city, but a siege?... you'd tear the country apart in practice. So... I know you don't ask frivolous questions, but I'm missing the point here.
 
2,662
20
One is driving right now, I'll get back to you asap.

There is method to the madness.
 
2,662
20
A few things before I start. I feel there are some really bad assumptions being made (or appear to be):
1. Not everyone with a gun will be against what the military is doing.
2. Not everyone with a gun will stand up to the military or want to.
3. Not everyone with a gun will be capable of standing up to the military.
4. Some people with a gun will fight on the side of the military.
5. Not all non-armed civilians will be against what the military is doing.
6. Not all non-armed civilians will put up resistance to the military.

I mention them because they are possibilities and something you can't write-off. Particularly in relation to the civilian population without arms not resisting and just "getting on with things".

Also, I'd like to add that for the purpose of this discussion we're assuming the military personnel are all in agreement and going along with this coup.

Now the blockade thing was purely relating to supplies (as someone brought in above). If the military got control of the areas surrounding major cities (wouldn't have to be air tight, just monitoring transport links for the most part - drones could handle that) and their utilities it would give them a fair amount of control over the populace. On top of that they could manage food supplies and related items.
Add to that a complete ban on weapons and ammo entering these 'control zones' and there's only so long the resistance can keep going.

Remember, there's going to be a few million people in each city relying on supplies from external sources.

Basically, military say "you keep doing your jobs and providing us what we need and we won't stop the food arriving, water running, electric on and gas flowing.".

The reason I didn't want the areas wiped off the face of the earth is simply relating to the usefulness of having the infrastructure in place.

I'd also note though that if we are at the stage of the military taking over, I somehow doubt they'd care about wiping out a small area if there was a lot of resistance coming from there.

As you said Nismar "a gun without bullets is like a gun without its owner: useless. " - you can apply the same thing to the population regarding food and other supplies / utilities. Hunger can be a major player for the military. They wouldn't have to control the population, only the supply routes.

Personally, if something like this happened I'd want to be on the border with Canada - I'd say that gives your best bet for resistance / survival.
 
A few things before I start. I feel there are some really bad assumptions being made (or appear to be):
1. Not everyone with a gun will be against what the military is doing.
2. Not everyone with a gun will stand up to the military or want to.
3. Not everyone with a gun will be capable of standing up to the military.
4. Some people with a gun will fight on the side of the military.
5. Not all non-armed civilians will be against what the military is doing.
6. Not all non-armed civilians will put up resistance to the military.

I mention them because they are possibilities and something you can't write-off. Particularly in relation to the civilian population without arms not resisting and just "getting on with things".

Also, I'd like to add that for the purpose of this discussion we're assuming the military personnel are all in agreement and going along with this coup.

Now the blockade thing was purely relating to supplies (as someone brought in above). If the military got control of the areas surrounding major cities (wouldn't have to be air tight, just monitoring transport links for the most part - drones could handle that) and their utilities it would give them a fair amount of control over the populace. On top of that they could manage food supplies and related items.
Add to that a complete ban on weapons and ammo entering these 'control zones' and there's only so long the resistance can keep going.

Remember, there's going to be a few million people in each city relying on supplies from external sources.

Basically, military say "you keep doing your jobs and providing us what we need and we won't stop the food arriving, water running, electric on and gas flowing.".

The reason I didn't want the areas wiped off the face of the earth is simply relating to the usefulness of having the infrastructure in place.

I'd also note though that if we are at the stage of the military taking over, I somehow doubt they'd care about wiping out a small area if there was a lot of resistance coming from there.

As you said Nismar "a gun without bullets is like a gun without its owner: useless. " - you can apply the same thing to the population regarding food and other supplies / utilities. Hunger can be a major player for the military. They wouldn't have to control the population, only the supply routes.

Personally, if something like this happened I'd want to be on the border with Canada - I'd say that gives your best bet for resistance / survival.
AFAIK, if the military were lock-step as you say, "resistance [would be] futile." In that situation, decimation or destruction of a major population center that resists would be highly effective, and the use of WMD would be easy. We have an amazing military; we'd have no chance at all, but by the same token, it's extremely hard to imagine a military coup in the USA. A military coup d'état with only the threat of violence, if that threat were real, would be inexorable.
 
2,662
20
AFAIK, if the military were lock-step as you say, "resistance [would be] futile." In that situation, decimation or destruction of a major population center that resists would be highly effective, and the use of WMD would be easy. We have an amazing military; we'd have no chance at all, but by the same token, it's extremely hard to imagine a military coup in the USA. A military coup d'état with only the threat of violence, if that threat were real, would be inexorable.
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

I don't believe any 'westernised' country is easily susceptible to a coup from the military purely because of the issue of the troops not cooperating - this ignores anything other countries may do.

But once you have all those things in place I don't think there would be much you could do about it.

I learn a new word from you each day nismar, today's is "inexorable".
 
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter.

I don't believe any 'westernised' country is easily susceptible to a coup from the military purely because of the issue of the troops not cooperating - this ignores anything other countries may do.

But once you have all those things in place I don't think there would be much you could do about it.

I learn a new word from you each day nismar, today's is "inexorable".
Heh... thanks Jared, and I do agree... beyond that, if other countries tried to interfere with a military coup of a nuclear power... that could end badly.
 
2,662
20
Heh... thanks Jared, and I do agree... beyond that, if other countries tried to interfere with a military coup of a nuclear power... that could end badly.
I'd say the whole MAD thing would come back into play again - it would be the sort of monetary and trade restrictions that could be placed I was mainly considering.

Obviously, I don't think they'd last - I bet China would supply just to get them on side (let's face it, the Chinese are hardly known for their strict adherence to international law and such - copyright is a word that doesn't mean anything for a start).
 
I'd say the whole MAD thing would come back into play again - it would be the sort of monetary and trade restrictions that could be placed I was mainly considering.

Obviously, I don't think they'd last - I bet China would supply just to get them on side (let's face it, the Chinese are hardly known for their strict adherence to international law and such - copyright is a word that doesn't mean anything for a start).
True; all we need to do is examine the history of proxy warfare during the cold war to find out how these things must be done. We've also seen that the price is blowback on the scale of (and in fact) AQ.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
The I in IED stands for "improvised." They weren't sold in Iraq, either.
Neither were the RPGs - most came from the military stocks. But the Iraqi IEDs were made from artillery rounds and mortar shells. The IRA liked to make theirs from Semtex. The Viet Cong used unexploded hand grenades, and the Afghani mujahideen made explosives from landmines. I'm not aware of any insurgency that lasted any length of time building IEDs from Miracle Gro and drain cleaner.

My point is, you don't need all of the latest military hardware to go up against a modern military.
Sure, you can go up against them, but how long will you last without the ability to effectively take out air cover, and heavily armored vehicles and tanks?

The Iraqis wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without small arms.
In Iraq, if I remember correctly, over half of all US casualties were attributed to IEDs. Somewhere near 10% of all personnel, and a disproportionately larger amount of firepower was lost through downed helicopters and fixed wing craft.

Ivan, yes US troops had to go house-to-house, but to my knowledge they didn't suffer significant casualties from small arms fire out of people's kitchens and bedrooms.
 
Neither were the RPGs - most came from the military stocks. But the Iraqi IEDs were made from artillery rounds and mortar shells. The IRA liked to make theirs from Semtex. The Viet Cong used unexploded hand grenades, and the Afghani mujahideen made explosives from landmines. I'm not aware of any insurgency that lasted any length of time building IEDs from Miracle Gro and drain cleaner.
I'd add, Iran and others provide EFP's to Iraq, so there's also a proxy warefare element you might not see it he US. Then again, who here couldn't make horrific bomb?... The main issues would be blowing yourself to a fine red mist, and the obvious horror of it all.

Sure, you can go up against them, but how long will you last without the ability to effectively take out air cover?
About 5 minutes.

In Iraq, over half of all US casualties were attributed to IEDs. Somewhere near 10% of all personnel, and a disproportionately larger amount of firepower was lost through downed helicopters and fixed wing craft.

Ivan, yes US troops had to go house-to-house, but to my knowledge they didn't suffer significant casualties from small arms fire out of people's kitchens and bedrooms.
In House to House sweeps, the people at most risk are the people in the houses. You have very good information Gokul.
 
4,222
1
How did Rome evolve from counting votes, to a republic of the few, then to Julius Cesar and dictatorship?
 
How did Rome evolve from counting votes, to a republic of the few, then to Julius Cesar and dictatorship?
Through a complex serious of events, including massive corruption and the reality that land-owning gnetry were the major players.

I'd add... Londinium was quite nice... and when the Romans left, it became a ruin for centuries.
 
4,222
1
Through a complex serious of events, including massive corruption and the reality that land-owning gnetry were the major players.

I'd add... Londinium was quite nice... and when the Romans left, it became a ruin for centuries.
The idea is to draw parallels between the US and Rome, which requires more than quick consideration.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,136
In Iraq, if I remember correctly, over half of all US casualties were attributed to IEDs. Somewhere near 10% of all personnel, and a disproportionately larger amount of firepower was lost through downed helicopters and fixed wing craft.
At least 60% according to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device#Iraq

It's also worth noting that a significant fraction of IEDs - particularly in Iraq - are stolen military explosives. So the idea of musket-wielding peasants being able to also resist with IEDs is moving the goalposts to a different field! They're not stripping fireworks to make these IEDs.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,979
5,136
Re: Dictatorship

They still had to take the country house by house. That means men [and women] with guns, not RPGs.

Recall the cry that we heard from a woman in Libya that was quoted in the Libya thread ~ "Help us, we have no guns!" The only reason Kadhafi forces have been held at bay is that the people were able to get guns. We see the proof right before our eyes.

You don't need an RPG to kill a man. A high-power rifle, like any hunting rifle for large game, will do. In fact, it is much harder to kill something like a bear, than it is to kill a man.

Without guns, we are nothing but helpless sheep in the eyes of a cruel dictator.
Aren't you arguing against your own point here, Ivan? A public who doesn't have guns can still get guns (and RPGs and SAMs and tanks) and defeat a dictator, particularly when it is the military units themselves who are joining the revolution.

You're not suggesting Americans should have a right to bear tanks, are you?
 

Containment

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.
 
2,662
20
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.
You can own a tank if you want, there are people in the UK that own Harrier Jump Jets.

But, and here's the real kicker, you're not allowed to own the weapons that goes with them *would you believe it*?

So unless you plan on 'distraction runs' and throwing rocks out of the cockpit kinda like old school fighter pilots on the original bomber runs, you're not going to be much use (and even then I'd give you one pass of a SAM site at best).
 

Related Threads for: Chance of a dictator taking over the country

  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top