Chance of a dictator taking over the country

[jobyts]

How does a country laws or practices, prevent/reduce the chance of a dictator taking over the country?

In any country, if the army+navy+air force chiefs join together, they could take over the country. Does any law prevent the 3 chiefs meeting in secret, without anyone else's presence?

 

[JaredJames]

It's treason I believe.

I don't know if there are specific laws against them meeting, but there things regarding mutiny etc so that would cover it.

 

[Gokul43201]

In any country, if the army+navy+air force chiefs join together, they could take over the country.

Why do you expect the troops to go along with it? Military coups are generally only successful in countries that do not have any extended history as a democratic republic.

 

[mugaliens]

How does a country laws or practices, prevent/reduce the chance of a dictator taking over the country?

In any country, if the army+navy+air force chiefs join together, they could take over the country.

Here in the U.S., our founding fathers saw fit to preclude such from ever happening.

Does any law prevent the 3 chiefs meeting in secret, without anyone else's presence?

Oh, yeah. Furthermore, the oath of office taken by all other Military Officers, Congressmen, the President of the Uinited States of America, and members of the Federal Judiciary, would "tend" to indicate that no dictator will ever overtake our country. Ever, and even if his/her avenue of infilitration might be from the inside.

There are too many controls in our system of government, not the least of which is complete overthrowing of any "thrown" government and the affirmation of both the United Kingdom's Crown Monarchy as well as the United States of America in each and every iota extending back to our Founding Father's 1776 statements, and 100% inclusive, each and every one beyond.

We failed. We didn't get it right. They did - more power to them.

- Mugs

 

[JaredJames]

Here in the U.S., our founding fathers saw fit to preclude such from ever happening.

How did they do that then?

Please don't tell me it's the whole "bear arms" thing.

Naturally, the argument asks that all military personnel go along with it. In most modern democracies I don't see that happening anyway - but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

 

[mugaliens]

How did they do that then?

Please don't tell me it's the whole "bear arms" thing.

No, I won't please to tell you that's what won the Revolutionary war.

I'll let the fact our nation stands as it is, instead.

Naturally, the argument asks that all military personnel go along with it. In most modern democracies I don't see that happening anyway - but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

What argument t about "all military going along with it" are you talking about?

That's nonsense, not heard of within the ranks, or outside of it.

 

[JaredJames]

No, I won't please to tell you that's what won the Revolutionary war.

I'll let the fact our nation stands as it is, instead.

You're comparing a fight between two armies of men with relatively poor guns, where the heaviest weapon was a cannon, to a fight between an army with modern capabilities (tanks, gunships, drones, missiles etc etc) against an army of men that is no different to the militia hundreds of years ago (well they're not as well trained, so effectively worse off)?

That's like saying a war between two rival Native American tribes is equivalent to today's battles raging in Iraq and Afghanistan. Complete nonsense. Weapons and technology have changed warfare - a war 200 years ago is not even close to a modern one. Heck, look at the differences between the first world war and the second - the tanks and machine guns changed warfare significantly. Imagine if one of the sides in the revolutionary war had machine guns the likes of which we have today - how would that affect the outcome?

There was a time when you lined your men up facing each other or charged at the enemy line - machine guns and improved accuracy changed that.

What argument t about "all military going along with it" are you talking about?

That's nonsense, not heard of within the ranks, or outside of it.

The argument that "if the army+navy+air force chiefs join together, they could take over the country".

That would assume all of those forces personnel going along with it. Nothing nonsense there. If the personnel don't go along with it you'd have a hard time completing your coup-d'etat.

 

[Jack21222]

You're comparing a fight between two armies of men with relatively poor guns, where the heaviest weapon was a cannon, to a fight between an army with modern capabilities (tanks, gunships, drones, missiles etc etc) against an army of men that is no different to the militia hundreds of years ago (well they're not as well trained, so effectively worse off)?

It worked pretty well in Iraq, though the insurgents eventually lost. The citizens of Iraq put up a pretty good fight against our occupation force, don't you think?

 

[JaredJames]

It worked pretty well in Iraq, though the insurgents eventually lost. The citizens of Iraq put up a pretty good fight against our occupation force, don't you think?

Although a better comparison, the Iraqi people are not Americans.

I'm not denying a fight may be put up and it could prove extremely effective at slowing things down.

But, thanks to modern equipment (the tanks etc again) - unlike the Iraq people we don't have RPG's and other anti-tank weapons lying around to use.

If I have 20 RPG's and a tank coming at me, there's a change I could do some damage. If all I have is a few light arms, well the tank's just going to keep on coming.

With the right weapons, I'm sure you could put up a good fight - but you'd have to get those weapons first.

 

[Gokul43201]

It worked pretty well in Iraq, though the insurgents eventually lost. The citizens of Iraq put up a pretty good fight against our occupation force, don't you think?

They wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without RPGs and roadside bombs. Do you think it's a good idea that IEDs be sold legally in the US? Does or does not the 2nd Amendment protect our right to carry an RPG?

 

[russ_watters]

It worked pretty well in Iraq, though the insurgents eventually lost. The citizens of Iraq put up a pretty good fight against our occupation force, don't you think?

No, I wouldn't agree with any of that. An insurgency may have patience and tenacity but you shouldn't confuse that with effectiveness.

...and even at that, they weren't fighting with muskets. No ied's 200 years ago as gokul said.

 

[Jack21222]

They wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without RPGs and roadside bombs. Do you think it's a good idea that IEDs be sold legally in the US? Does or does not the 2nd Amendment protect our right to carry an RPG?

The I in IED stands for "improvised." They weren't sold in Iraq, either. Hence the word "improvised." I can build an IED out of things readily available for sale here in the US. And I hardly think RPGs are a requirement to put up resistance.

My point is, you don't need all of the latest military hardware to go up against a modern military. The Iraqis wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without small arms.

 

[WhoWee]

How does a country laws or practices, prevent/reduce the chance of a dictator taking over the country?

In any country, if the army+navy+air force chiefs join together, they could take over the country. Does any law prevent the 3 chiefs meeting in secret, without anyone else's presence?

Are you talking about a Western Democracy, or a country with a strong military like Egypt, or an Saddam-Iraq state like Libya, or an area run by warlords like Somalia - the starting point makes a big difference.

 

[JaredJames]

The I in IED stands for "improvised." They weren't sold in Iraq, either. Hence the word "improvised." I can build an IED out of things readily available for sale here in the US. And I hardly think RPGs are a requirement to put up resistance.

Depends what you're trying to resist. Takes more than a few bottle rockets to take out a tank. Or perhaps those three apaches coming over the horizon, or the fighter jets, or the drones picking off targets from range.

My point is, you don't need all of the latest military hardware to go up against a modern military. The Iraqis wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without small arms.

No, you don't - but you do need some hardware.

As Russ points out, there is a differences between simply providing resistance (regardless of how long for) and being successful.

Unlike the people fighting back, the military has significantly more options - it is only the rules of war and ethical / moral beliefs that say we shouldn't carpet bomb that group of terrorists shooting at us and be done with it - we don't want to hurt civilians.

 

[Jack21222]

Depends what you're trying to resist. Takes more than a few bottle rockets to take out a tank. Or perhaps those three apaches coming over the horizon, or the fighter jets, or the drones picking off targets from range.


No, you don't - but you do need some hardware.

As Russ points out, there is a differences between simply providing resistance (regardless of how long for) and being successful.

Unlike the people fighting back, the military has significantly more options - it is only the rules of war and ethical / moral beliefs that say we shouldn't carpet bomb that group of terrorists shooting at us and be done with it - we don't want to hurt civilians.

The problem with trying to set up a dictatorship is that the "terrorists" are the civilians. Even if you get somebody like Gaddafi in Libya who orders the bombing of his civilians, it isn't easy to find pilots willing to do so. Humans seem to have no problem bombing people from a different culture, but people are much more reluctant to bomb members of their own culture.

Somebody trying to set up a dictatorship would have to contend with the fact that military members, even if not siding with the insurgents, might not be willing to just blow up everybody.

Also, I don't believe tanks are as useful as you think they are against an insurgency, especially in an urban environment.

Lastly, what's your definition of a terrorist? Are you calling people attacking military personnel "terrorists?" Would the people resisting a dictator trying to seize power "terrorists?" I'm not sure I agree with your use of that term in this thread.

 

[JaredJames]

Hardware used must be suitable for the environment - so should the tactics. An apache in a city of high rises is a bit of a bum move. But a few apaches and tanks surround a city to effectively blockade it against supplies entering is pretty damn effective.

I agree, that getting the military to do anything against their own people won't be easy - but it can and does happen - look at the recent stuff in Bahrain.

I'd say that if you have the military force on side and have them attempt a coup then the next stage isn't that difficult - especially if the civilians are firing on them.

Terrorist is a relative term, dependent on your view point. I'm using it from the view of the force trying to take over.

 

[jobyts]

Are you talking about a Western Democracy, or a country with a strong military like Egypt, or an Saddam-Iraq state like Libya, or an area run by warlords like Somalia - the starting point makes a big difference.

My question was on why some countries are more susceptible to dictatorship than others. So it's about all the countries. As Gokul pointed out, unless the whole chain of military agrees with a take over, a takeover attempt will not be successful. And what makes the military think it is worth/not worth taking over a country? I think the economy, corruption, cultural attitude towards war all play its role. Most of the western countries have better economy, so it gets almost impossible for a military chief to motivate all his subordinates to attack his own country. It gets much easier in a country like Somalia.

Some interesting examples could be:

1. Most of the western countries (better economy)
2. India (not rich, colonial country who embraced democracy)
3. Pakistan (not rich, colonial country which moves back and forth democracy and dictatorship)
3. Saudi (Rich country, under the King rule)
4. Somalia... (poor country, ruled by warlords)

From my quick analysis from the above examples, it seems that if a country's economy is good, the country continues to be what was (democracy or king rule).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They wouldn't have come anywhere close to accomplishing what they did without RPGs and roadside bombs. Do you think it's a good idea that IEDs be sold legally in the US? Does or does not the 2nd Amendment protect our right to carry an RPG?

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

I've always said that many of the world's problems can be solved from the end of a long rifle. By the same token, if not for aviation assets, mortar and artillery and armor, it's very difficult to cordon a city and search by houses.

@jobyts: Some people believed that W. stole at least one election, and fraud in other US elections is hardly new. That said, even his ardent (sane) detractors wanted the legal process to take over, not the military. A culture of laws based on abstractions rather than laws based on interpretation of scriptures also helps, and is a potential weakness the US guards against actively with varying degrees of success.

 

[drankin]

Although a better comparison, the Iraqi people are not Americans.

I'm not denying a fight may be put up and it could prove extremely effective at slowing things down.

But, thanks to modern equipment (the tanks etc again) - unlike the Iraq people we don't have RPG's and other anti-tank weapons lying around to use.

If I have 20 RPG's and a tank coming at me, there's a change I could do some damage. If all I have is a few light arms, well the tank's just going to keep on coming.
With the right weapons, I'm sure you could put up a good fight - but you'd have to get those weapons first.

You have to consider that tanks don't drive themselves. American people drive those tanks. The same American people that swore to uphold the Constitution. Our military folks are not robots. Some may be but the majority are not. I don't ever see such a thing happening. The idea is silly speculation.

 

[nismaratwork]

You have to consider that tanks don't drive themselves. American people drive those tanks. The same American people that swore to uphold the Constitution. Our military folks are not robots. Some may be but the majority are not. I don't ever see such a thing happening. The idea is silly speculation.

People can be decieved, led, and otherwise coerced, and therefore is not "silly" speculation, but mere speculation in a thread that is SPECULATIVE by definition.

@JnJ: An RPG doesn't really do much to the M1 Abrams... I don't believe much defeats that armor except for another main battle tank, air assets, or fixed anti-material weapons.

You + LAWS + Enemy M1 = You dead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've always said that many of the world's problems can be solved from the end of a long rifle. By the same token, if not for aviation assets, mortar and artillery and armor, it's very difficult to cordon a city and search by houses.

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.

 

[drankin]

People can be decieved, led, and otherwise coerced, and therefore is not "silly" speculation, but mere speculation in a thread that is SPECULATIVE by definition.

In that case, we should discuss in what ways people would be so decieved, led, and otherwise coerced as to fire upon fellow Americans instead of how we can blow up a tank.

 

[drankin]

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.

Excellent point.

 

[nismaratwork]

In that case, we should discuss in what ways people would be so decieved, led, and otherwise coerced as to fire upon fellow Americans instead of how we can blow up a tank.

I agree, but that's quite a long disucssion with books written on the topic... no need to have it here in a general form.

 

[nismaratwork]

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 separate 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.

 

[JaredJames]

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)?

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

For military.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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?

(sorry-just label this IMO to save time)

 

[nismaratwork]

Assuming there are bullets available?

(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.

 

[JaredJames]

One is driving right now, I'll get back to you asap.

There is method to the madness.