3 ms·

There's a large subset of people who, for whatever reason, are particularly attuned to ideas and fears around societal collapse, authoritarian takeovers, and ot

There's a large subset of people who, for whatever reason, are particularly attuned to ideas and fears around societal collapse, authoritarian takeovers, and other threats to their personal liberties. That's not to say these fears are completely unfounded -- they've been realized before many times throughout history. But when faced with questions such as, "Would the US military turn on the people?" they're likely to assess the risk far higher than the average person would. They're also far more likely to be libertarians.

godelski 7y ago
I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people. We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people." I'm not sure why the US military would be an exception in the history of hundreds or thousands of years of militaries being used against domestic civilian populations. Politicians are very good at getting militaries to heel. That's why militaries exist in the first place. "We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous." Some soldiers may have had a hard time killing Vietnamese civilians, yet despite that nearly 200,000 died. In WW2 tens of millions died. As for shooting friends and family, see the viciousness and bloodiness of the American Civil War.

godelski 7y ago

I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people. We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people." I'm not sure why the US military would be an exception in the history of hundreds or thousands of years of militaries being used against domestic civilian populations. Politicians are very good at getting militaries to heel. That's why militaries exist in the first place. "We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous." Some soldiers may have had a hard time killing Vietnamese civilians, yet despite that nearly 200,000 died. In WW2 tens of millions died. As for shooting friends and family, see the viciousness and bloodiness of the American Civil War.