- #36
JaredJames
- 2,818
- 22
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.
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.