4 ms·

It's difficult to imagine a violent uprising in a state with such militarized police and widespread, distributed armed forces presence as the US. When even out

It's difficult to imagine a violent uprising in a state with such militarized police and widespread, distributed armed forces presence as the US. When even outside of times of unrest, encounters with the police result in getting fatally shot or seriously injured much more frequently than in comparably high-HDI states [1][2], it would take the cooperation of police and the military to allow unrest to take its course instead of being quickly crushed; this is culturally unlikely in the US which holds public order and the continuity of government in high esteem. [1] https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/when-it-comes-police-shootings-us-doesnt-look-developed-nation https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-12/when-it-comes-police-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-...

Retric 10y ago
It's one thing to turn a foreign country into a police state, when you need to actually be a productive society that simply stops functioning with large scale unrest. The problem is not direct force of arms, the problem is society needs a vast number of soft targets to continue to operate. If large numbers of people chose to simply take down power lines there is almost nothing the police or military could do. City's water supply pipes are similarly easy to destroy and difficult to replace. Roads are harder to destroy, but easy to prevent most civilian traffic.
- temp-dude-87844 10y ago
  I'm not sure whether you're saying that sabotage of infrastructure performed by the populace is a good way to perpetuate unrest in a way that a militarized state can't squash, or whether you're saying that the state can quickly destroy key pieces of infrastructure to cause pain to people who refuse to fall in line. Because both are true, but the latter is far more likely and effective: after all, who wants to destroy the last remaining enablers of their comfort, shelter, and livelihood just to prove a point... and then what? One only need to look at the city of Flint, whose water pipes continue to deliver lead-laced water to households black and white, but society has largely routed around the damage: we carry on with our lives and ignore it's a problem. It's only a problem for those in Flint. Meanwhile, the military and police can turn off utilities, blockade towns, enact curfews, and isolate even the flow of information, all without firing a single bullet. This way, pockets of unrest can be abated before they become a movement so pervasive that the military themselves defect.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Except nothing says it's your power line you destroy. The failure is when group A destroys B's infrastructure and group B destroys A's infrastructure but both groups A and B are in the same country. The gap from tagging aka spray-paint to tossing bricks through windows is tiny. So, yes you can have independent enclaves that are protected, but it's easy to get into no mans land where the police don't come to some and then most areas without a lot of backup.
fasquoika 10y ago
>encounters with the police result in getting fatally shot or seriously injured Which absolutely enrages a large portion of the populace. The state can't just put down protests with violence and expect things to get better. Ruling through fear never works for long. History is littered with revolts that only became popular after everyone involved were slaughtered and normal people became sympathetic
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > Ruling through fear never works for long. Define 'long'. North Korea has been a mess for a while.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    This is a good point. In the US and (to varying degrees) other Western countries we have a stronger notion of free press and free speech. These are major structural characteristics that permit a balance of power between those given authority and those they have authority over. A reduction in free speech/assembly/press, means a reduction in the ability of the people to revolt (to any degree) effectively against those who abuse the authority they've been granted or taken.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
sbierwagen 10y ago
In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million people on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). So, 1 in 416 people in the US is a sworn law enforcement official. Not great odds for fighting armed revolt.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  An armed revolt wouldn't just be going up against law enforcement. At that level of violence, they'd be going up against the National Guard (state militias), the US military (both active duty and reserve). Of course, across all three groups fighting against the revolters there will be both sympathizers and revolters themselves (I'd particularly expect to see this amongst local and state law enforcement and militias, less amongst federal military and law enforcement but still present).
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    The only person I've heard claim the US might suspend Posse Commitatus is Alex Jones. That is a serious supposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act The person I responded to was discussing law enforcement being overwhelmed by armed revolt. The Federal armed forces could be used in such a situation.
namrog84 10y ago
Don't forget that both the police and military aren't part of the "elite" so I don't think it's fair to say they'd all blindly oppose any rebellion or uprising. They could very easily help it as well. Many police and military are greatly underpaid and underappreciated. And Im sure most of them would want a better America. Some might consider me naive but I believe many if not most all police and military are good wholesome people who will try to do their best for the people. A few bad media popularized outliers does not represent the whole.

Retric 10y ago

It's one thing to turn a foreign country into a police state, when you need to actually be a productive society that simply stops functioning with large scale unrest. The problem is not direct force of arms, the problem is society needs a vast number of soft targets to continue to operate. If large numbers of people chose to simply take down power lines there is almost nothing the police or military could do. City's water supply pipes are similarly easy to destroy and difficult to replace. Roads are harder to destroy, but easy to prevent most civilian traffic.

temp-dude-87844 10y ago
I'm not sure whether you're saying that sabotage of infrastructure performed by the populace is a good way to perpetuate unrest in a way that a militarized state can't squash, or whether you're saying that the state can quickly destroy key pieces of infrastructure to cause pain to people who refuse to fall in line. Because both are true, but the latter is far more likely and effective: after all, who wants to destroy the last remaining enablers of their comfort, shelter, and livelihood just to prove a point... and then what? One only need to look at the city of Flint, whose water pipes continue to deliver lead-laced water to households black and white, but society has largely routed around the damage: we carry on with our lives and ignore it's a problem. It's only a problem for those in Flint. Meanwhile, the military and police can turn off utilities, blockade towns, enact curfews, and isolate even the flow of information, all without firing a single bullet. This way, pockets of unrest can be abated before they become a movement so pervasive that the military themselves defect.
- Retric 10y ago
  Except nothing says it's your power line you destroy. The failure is when group A destroys B's infrastructure and group B destroys A's infrastructure but both groups A and B are in the same country. The gap from tagging aka spray-paint to tossing bricks through windows is tiny. So, yes you can have independent enclaves that are protected, but it's easy to get into no mans land where the police don't come to some and then most areas without a lot of backup.

fasquoika 10y ago

>encounters with the police result in getting fatally shot or seriously injured Which absolutely enrages a large portion of the populace. The state can't just put down protests with violence and expect things to get better. Ruling through fear never works for long. History is littered with revolts that only became popular after everyone involved were slaughtered and normal people became sympathetic

humanrebar 10y ago
> Ruling through fear never works for long. Define 'long'. North Korea has been a mess for a while.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  This is a good point. In the US and (to varying degrees) other Western countries we have a stronger notion of free press and free speech. These are major structural characteristics that permit a balance of power between those given authority and those they have authority over. A reduction in free speech/assembly/press, means a reduction in the ability of the people to revolt (to any degree) effectively against those who abuse the authority they've been granted or taken.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

sbierwagen 10y ago

In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million people on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers). So, 1 in 416 people in the US is a sworn law enforcement official. Not great odds for fighting armed revolt.

Jtsummers 10y ago
An armed revolt wouldn't just be going up against law enforcement. At that level of violence, they'd be going up against the National Guard (state militias), the US military (both active duty and reserve). Of course, across all three groups fighting against the revolters there will be both sympathizers and revolters themselves (I'd particularly expect to see this amongst local and state law enforcement and militias, less amongst federal military and law enforcement but still present).
- narrowrail 10y ago
  The only person I've heard claim the US might suspend Posse Commitatus is Alex Jones. That is a serious supposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act The person I responded to was discussing law enforcement being overwhelmed by armed revolt. The Federal armed forces could be used in such a situation.

namrog84 10y ago

Don't forget that both the police and military aren't part of the "elite" so I don't think it's fair to say they'd all blindly oppose any rebellion or uprising. They could very easily help it as well. Many police and military are greatly underpaid and underappreciated. And Im sure most of them would want a better America. Some might consider me naive but I believe many if not most all police and military are good wholesome people who will try to do their best for the people. A few bad media popularized outliers does not represent the whole.