4 ms·

> The US military has an urban warfare document that states the number of troops required to secure N population Are you expecting the whole US to join this in

> The US military has an urban warfare document that states the number of troops required to secure N population Are you expecting the whole US to join this insurgency/rebellion/civil war? Most of the gun owners today already support Trump - a man who idolizes authoritarianism. Instead of a scenario where the entirety of the U.S. police force quells a rebellion made up of 100% of the gun owning populace, it would be more likely that the dictator gets the gun owning populace on his/her side (not far from today's situation!) as reward for supporting the authoritarianism policies under the guise of democracy.

rgbrenner 7y ago
The 'whole US'? No, of course not. If an entire city was against the dictator, then they could do what al-Assad did in Syria: gas the entire city. The problem with an insurgency is that most of the population is either for you or at least pretends to be... so it's impossible to find those working against you.. and that support could be active (by fighting themselves) or passive by refusing to report insurgent activity, for example. IIRC, the minimum force is 1 soldier per 50 citizens. That's enough for the military to be so prevalent in an area that it would be impossible for insurgents to operate. For the US that would be 6 million soldiers (+ soldiers for the unpopulated areas). Those numbers usually don't include civilian police forces, but even if you did include them, the US military would be millions of people short. But yes, the insurgency needs support from the people. Not a majority, but a network and general support must exist in order for it to survive.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Just as a note India has 1:10 in Kashmir and still isn't making too much headway in the ideas battle.
- coryfklein 7y ago
  No reason an insurgency couldn't coexist with a dictatorship. I just don't believe this kind of embedded insurgency could reach levels of organization great enough to overthrow the dictatorship. Certainly an insurgent in a dictatorship has not won back his liberty. Therefore an armed populace, in my mind, does not prevent a dictatorship.

rgbrenner 7y ago

The 'whole US'? No, of course not. If an entire city was against the dictator, then they could do what al-Assad did in Syria: gas the entire city. The problem with an insurgency is that most of the population is either for you or at least pretends to be... so it's impossible to find those working against you.. and that support could be active (by fighting themselves) or passive by refusing to report insurgent activity, for example. IIRC, the minimum force is 1 soldier per 50 citizens. That's enough for the military to be so prevalent in an area that it would be impossible for insurgents to operate. For the US that would be 6 million soldiers (+ soldiers for the unpopulated areas). Those numbers usually don't include civilian police forces, but even if you did include them, the US military would be millions of people short. But yes, the insurgency needs support from the people. Not a majority, but a network and general support must exist in order for it to survive.

selimthegrim 7y ago
Just as a note India has 1:10 in Kashmir and still isn't making too much headway in the ideas battle.
coryfklein 7y ago
No reason an insurgency couldn't coexist with a dictatorship. I just don't believe this kind of embedded insurgency could reach levels of organization great enough to overthrow the dictatorship. Certainly an insurgent in a dictatorship has not won back his liberty. Therefore an armed populace, in my mind, does not prevent a dictatorship.