5 ms·

You’d think that an armed protest group would mean that the government reacts with _less_ force? Rather than simply deploying an appropriate amount of force to

by orf 7y ago

You’d think that an armed protest group would mean that the government reacts with _less_ force? Rather than simply deploying an appropriate amount of force to stop them? Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA, and there is no way a government would set a precedent that all you need to make it capitulate is wave a gun around. I’m not saying that the outcome would be the protesters would not be successful, in saying that the government would roll in the tanks immediately and without hesitation.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".
- derefr 7y ago
  Most countries you’re thinking of as counterexamples don’t have an equivalent to Air Force One (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator) or nuclear submarines with SLBMs (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator’s hard power.) Nothing a militia does storming US land civil or military infrastructure would matter to a US dictator, any more than it would if a foreign military did so. The US military domestic defence system was designed under the assumption that this is exactly the type of attack a foreign military would try, in fact—convincing US citizens (and members of the US military!) to foment a coup, the way the US foments coups in other countries. Basically, the US president is in the constant implicit position of being able to hold the entire US hostage from a flying doom fortress† like some kind of supervillain. The only people who can really stop a “crazy president” scenario are people either high up in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would 1. Have the authorization to be in the president’s presence during DEFCON 1, and then 2. Have the personal trust/authority to tell the president’s bodyguards to buzz off for a minute. † The “doom fortress” part applies more to the subs than to AF1, but if you treat the two as a unit, it works.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    "By Dawn's Early Light" is a movie with James Earl Jones as "Alice" the general aboard an EC-135 carrying out the "Looking Glass" mission (a 24/7 airborne command and control, now obsoleted) after a surprise attack. Jones' character decides to ram Air Force One to eliminate the hawkish Secretary of the Interior who has assumed the role of President - and thus resolve a deadlock so that the actual President (who has survived, badly wounded and unable to prove his identity to those aboard Air Force One) can countermand US forces and prevent a retaliatory strike which would inevitably cause World War III. It's made for TV but I thought it did a surprisingly good job. I don't know whether you actually could chase and collide with the plane normally designated Air Force One in an EC-135, but certainly I'd bet on military pilots to give it their best shot if their commander explained the consequences otherwise.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Can an EC-135 escape the US’s own best air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles† being launched in a single mass-bombardment toward it with full penaids, by craft running the US’s best ECCM? Because, whatever they’re nominally flying, half the point of AF1 is aerial territory denial around the principal craft, so I’d assume they’re kitted out just for that task. Pretty hard to ram. † Presumably, doctrine for a “Looking Glass” mission would have AF1 plan flight paths that bring them near still-executive-controlled surface missile batteries. Unsure if anything before a modern 5G craft could bring those batteries directly under its targeting control, though, rather than relying on the pilot making contact with living hands on the ground.
    - MS90 7y ago
      You probably could not, unless you set your EC-135 up way ahead of AF1 and took a crazy pursuit angle and timed the impact perfectly. The maximum speeds of the two planes are within 10mph of each other (at least, a base C-135 and a base 747. I'm sure there's some variance between those and an EC-135 and AF1 due to equipment loadouts and whatnot).
      - dTal 7y ago
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  > I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Of course not. But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing. And the whole situation, Hong Kongers protesting the removal of some of their 'special' rights isn't exactly winning sympathy among mainlanders.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing. Hong Kong can't much influence whether Tianjin is ruled from Beijing or not. But it can influence whether Hong Kong is ruled from Beijing! Being far away makes it hard for Hong Kong to reach Beijing, and it also makes it hard for Beijing to reach Hong Kong.
bluecalm 7y ago
Government would almost certainly lose against the armed population of US. You may be able to convince anti riot forces to use some kind of force against the protesters as long as it doesn't end up in huge bloodbath. You will not convince the army to shot their own citizens in their own towns though.
jimktrains2 7y ago
> Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA Just like it worked out for the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?
samsolomon 7y ago
Historically small arms win conflicts—not tanks, planes or bombs. The U.S. failed in Vietnam and has struggled in Afghanistan since 2001 against insurgents with little more than rifles.
goatinaboat 7y ago
the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it literally boggles my mind that anyone still believes that. In fact Afghanistan twice, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets the same way.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Well... the mujaheddin had US-supplied shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. That did help them a bit...
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    True, but the US has more helicopters than the Soviets, and the Taliban don’t have Stingers anymore, and they’ll still be there long after the US has quit “You have the watches, but we have the time”

by orf 7y ago

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".

derefr 7y ago
Most countries you’re thinking of as counterexamples don’t have an equivalent to Air Force One (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator) or nuclear submarines with SLBMs (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator’s hard power.) Nothing a militia does storming US land civil or military infrastructure would matter to a US dictator, any more than it would if a foreign military did so. The US military domestic defence system was designed under the assumption that this is exactly the type of attack a foreign military would try, in fact—convincing US citizens (and members of the US military!) to foment a coup, the way the US foments coups in other countries. Basically, the US president is in the constant implicit position of being able to hold the entire US hostage from a flying doom fortress† like some kind of supervillain. The only people who can really stop a “crazy president” scenario are people either high up in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would 1. Have the authorization to be in the president’s presence during DEFCON 1, and then 2. Have the personal trust/authority to tell the president’s bodyguards to buzz off for a minute. † The “doom fortress” part applies more to the subs than to AF1, but if you treat the two as a unit, it works.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  "By Dawn's Early Light" is a movie with James Earl Jones as "Alice" the general aboard an EC-135 carrying out the "Looking Glass" mission (a 24/7 airborne command and control, now obsoleted) after a surprise attack. Jones' character decides to ram Air Force One to eliminate the hawkish Secretary of the Interior who has assumed the role of President - and thus resolve a deadlock so that the actual President (who has survived, badly wounded and unable to prove his identity to those aboard Air Force One) can countermand US forces and prevent a retaliatory strike which would inevitably cause World War III. It's made for TV but I thought it did a surprisingly good job. I don't know whether you actually could chase and collide with the plane normally designated Air Force One in an EC-135, but certainly I'd bet on military pilots to give it their best shot if their commander explained the consequences otherwise.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Can an EC-135 escape the US’s own best air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles† being launched in a single mass-bombardment toward it with full penaids, by craft running the US’s best ECCM? Because, whatever they’re nominally flying, half the point of AF1 is aerial territory denial around the principal craft, so I’d assume they’re kitted out just for that task. Pretty hard to ram. † Presumably, doctrine for a “Looking Glass” mission would have AF1 plan flight paths that bring them near still-executive-controlled surface missile batteries. Unsure if anything before a modern 5G craft could bring those batteries directly under its targeting control, though, rather than relying on the pilot making contact with living hands on the ground.
  - MS90 7y ago
    You probably could not, unless you set your EC-135 up way ahead of AF1 and took a crazy pursuit angle and timed the impact perfectly. The maximum speeds of the two planes are within 10mph of each other (at least, a base C-135 and a base 747. I'm sure there's some variance between those and an EC-135 and AF1 due to equipment loadouts and whatnot).
    - dTal 7y ago
Mikeb85 7y ago
> I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Of course not. But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing. And the whole situation, Hong Kongers protesting the removal of some of their 'special' rights isn't exactly winning sympathy among mainlanders.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing. Hong Kong can't much influence whether Tianjin is ruled from Beijing or not. But it can influence whether Hong Kong is ruled from Beijing! Being far away makes it hard for Hong Kong to reach Beijing, and it also makes it hard for Beijing to reach Hong Kong.

bluecalm 7y ago

Government would almost certainly lose against the armed population of US. You may be able to convince anti riot forces to use some kind of force against the protesters as long as it doesn't end up in huge bloodbath. You will not convince the army to shot their own citizens in their own towns though.

jimktrains2 7y ago

> Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA Just like it worked out for the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

samsolomon 7y ago

Historically small arms win conflicts—not tanks, planes or bombs. The U.S. failed in Vietnam and has struggled in Afghanistan since 2001 against insurgents with little more than rifles.

goatinaboat 7y ago

the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA After Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it literally boggles my mind that anyone still believes that. In fact Afghanistan twice, the Mujaheddin defeated the Soviets the same way.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Well... the mujaheddin had US-supplied shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. That did help them a bit...
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  True, but the US has more helicopters than the Soviets, and the Taliban don’t have Stingers anymore, and they’ll still be there long after the US has quit “You have the watches, but we have the time”