4 ms·

Sure, but that assumes a government willing to literally go to war with its populace, and why I explicitly said a war would be required. I have no illusions abo

Sure, but that assumes a government willing to literally go to war with its populace, and why I explicitly said a war would be required. I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. The difference between a country drowning in guns and one without them is that in the latter case it’s just that much easier, a “lower barrier to entry” if you will.

jstarfish 9y ago
> I have no illusions about how that war would end of course... tanks and B-52’s reliably best handguns and rifles. Plenty of US adversaries have met these odds and held their own. Aside from some targeted campaigns to eradicate individuals, we haven't truly "won" any notable military conflict since 1945. IEDs tend to level the playing field, but see how far you get trying to build or acquire those today. You'd be among the first wave of dissidents swept up in the ML-aided dragnet looking for purchasers of batteries and fertilizer.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  All good points, and I think it reinforces the incredible cost associated with attempting to institute something as tyrannical as “pre-crime” detention in the US. It could be done, but only over a mountain of corpses and human misery. A government willing to do that, and sacrifice economic and social stability for generations is happily not one which resembles our government. That could change, but it would be a massive change, not some inevitable slog. In China they’ve already crushed anything like resistance, disarmed their populace, and gone the full “re-education camp” route for a while.