3 ms·

Two trucks and a few soldiers lined in a row like ducks. A tank sitting alone. If the coup you're executing results in civilians being able to seize a tank and

Two trucks and a few soldiers lined in a row like ducks. A tank sitting alone. If the coup you're executing results in civilians being able to seize a tank and police having soldiers in custody, the coup lacked the overwhelming ingredient and swift execution that would paralyze and kill any hope of resisting. It needed to be clear that the deal was sealed to morally crush anyone willing to resist and make them understand that it's done and they'd better line up with the winning party. Civilians seizing a tank means they sized the military presence and said "Meh.. we're going for it anyway". An example of a well executed coup: The Algerian coup in 1965. Algerians woke up in the morning and found tanks in the streets of the capital, but it wasn't the beginning of the coup. It had already taken place. Tanks didn't really surprise because Gillo Pontecorvo was shooting "The Battle of Algiers" during that period and also used tanks (one of the greatest movies. Music by Ennio Morricone). The President was seized in his bed during the night, they woke him up and he was made prisoner for 15 years (liberated by the subsequent President after Boumédiène's death). The coup's instigator had the control of the Army and Intelligence before. There are many people who don't know there was a coup in 1965.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
but military knows it can't easily get away killing civilians.
- Jugurtha 10y ago
  You're very right! This is precisely why they must avoid a situation where civilians think they have a chance. Imagine you're one of 20 soldiers guarding a bridge. 4 people come to cross. They look at you, see that you're 20 and don't like those odds, they won't even attempt to cross. But even if they get funny ideas, you can scare them more easily. But even if they're determined, the number of civilians each one of you has to shoot is small: 1 civilian for every 5 soldiers. You can manage. You can direct your shots to be non lethal. You have time to aim and all. Now imagine it's a thousand people. The civilians look at you, size you up, and they like those odds. They know some of them are going to die overrunning you, but almost no one thinks they will be the one. This makes them go for it. What's your perspective? You're in a dilemma: you don't want to betray the mission to interdict that bridge, that's for sure. But let's say you're willing to shoot, the deal is the following: if you start shooting, you better not be overrun because once you go that path there's no turning back. This puts you in a corner into thinking "What if they still don't stop" and the number of people each one of you has to shoot on average is huge: 50. 50 civilians for each one of you. In a very limited time frame. You're not in a war zone, most of them are unarmed, and you could know or be related to some of them. So, do you go on with the mission? Do you shoot everyone? Do you start shooting but then stop shooting? But when you do, you'll be captured, and you'll be captured after killing many civilians..so you failed to interdict the bridge and failed not to kill citizens. It's not like you dropped your weapons before there were any civilian casualties.. Which you can't do either because you have a mission. This is one of the situations where anything half-assed becomes a blood bath and a "victory" à la Pyrrhus.. Contrast that with a military presence strong enough that sends a signal loud and clear to the civilians they'd better not mess with you because there's no chance they could succeed. Dissuasion to avoid a bloodshed.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

but military knows it can't easily get away killing civilians.

Jugurtha 10y ago
You're very right! This is precisely why they must avoid a situation where civilians think they have a chance. Imagine you're one of 20 soldiers guarding a bridge. 4 people come to cross. They look at you, see that you're 20 and don't like those odds, they won't even attempt to cross. But even if they get funny ideas, you can scare them more easily. But even if they're determined, the number of civilians each one of you has to shoot is small: 1 civilian for every 5 soldiers. You can manage. You can direct your shots to be non lethal. You have time to aim and all. Now imagine it's a thousand people. The civilians look at you, size you up, and they like those odds. They know some of them are going to die overrunning you, but almost no one thinks they will be the one. This makes them go for it. What's your perspective? You're in a dilemma: you don't want to betray the mission to interdict that bridge, that's for sure. But let's say you're willing to shoot, the deal is the following: if you start shooting, you better not be overrun because once you go that path there's no turning back. This puts you in a corner into thinking "What if they still don't stop" and the number of people each one of you has to shoot on average is huge: 50. 50 civilians for each one of you. In a very limited time frame. You're not in a war zone, most of them are unarmed, and you could know or be related to some of them. So, do you go on with the mission? Do you shoot everyone? Do you start shooting but then stop shooting? But when you do, you'll be captured, and you'll be captured after killing many civilians..so you failed to interdict the bridge and failed not to kill citizens. It's not like you dropped your weapons before there were any civilian casualties.. Which you can't do either because you have a mission. This is one of the situations where anything half-assed becomes a blood bath and a "victory" à la Pyrrhus.. Contrast that with a military presence strong enough that sends a signal loud and clear to the civilians they'd better not mess with you because there's no chance they could succeed. Dissuasion to avoid a bloodshed.