3 ms·

There was a comment on: > Absolutely. America is internally fractured enough now to make any resistance movement useless. Most people are content to attack eac

by munk-a 7y ago

There was a comment on: > Absolutely. America is internally fractured enough now to make any resistance movement useless. Most people are content to attack each other while the political/managerial class makes further extractions and the world moves beyond American hegemony. > It's sad, really. This country pulled in generally the same direction for a long time. We don't have that strength anymore. Which was deleted but raised some interesting points about the unification and cohesion of resistance movements and revolutions by my reading and I wanted to delve into movement fracturing even if that comment has been removed. I don't think change movements are ever unified with the possible exception of those against hard force backed governments. Unless someone is literally beheading people to stay in power the revolution (or just political shift) will happen long before there is a unified and majority based embraced of the new order. Revolutions and resistance seemed eternally relegated to the fringe and exposed to excessive fracturing. This may possibly be due to the zealotry of those on the fringes or the academic origins of most political movements, but I'm quite uncertain as to the definite cause. That said most political movements happen in stages where political ideals are embraced over time, in 2016 a 15$ minimum wage was decried as crazy and extremist and universal healthcare was viewed as an albatross, in this election round even Klobuchar had a plan that leaned toward universal healthcare. Lastly, if by resistance movement you meant some sort of armed uprising - that's never going to happen in the US without it being a full blown coup which doesn't seem to fit the framing of "resistance movement" very much. The military far outclasses private individuals - even while the US might be the most armed populace, the US military is even more excessive.

gruez 7y ago
>even while the US might be the most armed populace, the US military is even more excessive. that didn't help against insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam
- Proziam 7y ago
  Dropping millions of dollars worth of ordnance on a structure built from sticks and clay by hand (or, a tent...)isn't a "sustainable" strategy. Insurgents get several advantages that make asymmetric warfare a truly brutal experience beyond just the cost. 1. Use of women and children as weapon delivery systems, or shields. (Former US Navy Seal Jocko Willink once described a reoccurring situation whereby his team would be clearing homes in a contested territory and the families would act "strange" until they realized that one of the "family members" was not actually a family member at all.) 2. There are no laws. They can deploy whatever weapons and tactics they wish against both our forces and civilians alike. We are bound by rules of engagement (which aren't as obvious or straightforward as they might sound) which severely handicaps our ability to just "go get the bad guys" even if we know exactly where they are. 3. Extremism. Whether it is religiously motivated or not, extremism leads to predictable results. It's easy for propaganda to spread and to vilify anyone, but it's much easier when there's an actual "enemy" you can see. That effect is multiplied further when we inevitably make mistakes. War is hell. War should always be the absolute last resort. Unfortunately, the people who decide when we go to war aren't the people who actually have to put their lives and limbs on the line to fight it.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  As far as I can tell a lack of public and/or political will to commit mass murder (yes, a fair bit happened in Vietnam particularly, to put it mildly, but nothing like systemic mass murders, incarceration, depopulation, and retaliation your average authoritarian regime is OK engaging in to win a fight) or foreign intervention to neutralize the advantages of armor and air superiority (see: Syria, Iraq) plus foreign materiel support are necessary for scrappy underdogs with rifles to win wars against a modern military. Truly evil regimes only seem to get into trouble if foreigners interfere in a major way, or (obviously) they lose support of the military. Private small arms are barely a factor, regardless. [EDIT] my point being that resistance against one's own government, which has turned evil & brutal but still has the support of its military, is not exactly a case in which I'd expect private small arms per se to turn the tide of battle, or have much effect at all compared with other factors, really.

by munk-a 7y ago

gruez 7y ago

>even while the US might be the most armed populace, the US military is even more excessive. that didn't help against insurgents in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam

Proziam 7y ago
Dropping millions of dollars worth of ordnance on a structure built from sticks and clay by hand (or, a tent...)isn't a "sustainable" strategy. Insurgents get several advantages that make asymmetric warfare a truly brutal experience beyond just the cost. 1. Use of women and children as weapon delivery systems, or shields. (Former US Navy Seal Jocko Willink once described a reoccurring situation whereby his team would be clearing homes in a contested territory and the families would act "strange" until they realized that one of the "family members" was not actually a family member at all.) 2. There are no laws. They can deploy whatever weapons and tactics they wish against both our forces and civilians alike. We are bound by rules of engagement (which aren't as obvious or straightforward as they might sound) which severely handicaps our ability to just "go get the bad guys" even if we know exactly where they are. 3. Extremism. Whether it is religiously motivated or not, extremism leads to predictable results. It's easy for propaganda to spread and to vilify anyone, but it's much easier when there's an actual "enemy" you can see. That effect is multiplied further when we inevitably make mistakes. War is hell. War should always be the absolute last resort. Unfortunately, the people who decide when we go to war aren't the people who actually have to put their lives and limbs on the line to fight it.
karatestomp 7y ago
As far as I can tell a lack of public and/or political will to commit mass murder (yes, a fair bit happened in Vietnam particularly, to put it mildly, but nothing like systemic mass murders, incarceration, depopulation, and retaliation your average authoritarian regime is OK engaging in to win a fight) or foreign intervention to neutralize the advantages of armor and air superiority (see: Syria, Iraq) plus foreign materiel support are necessary for scrappy underdogs with rifles to win wars against a modern military. Truly evil regimes only seem to get into trouble if foreigners interfere in a major way, or (obviously) they lose support of the military. Private small arms are barely a factor, regardless. [EDIT] my point being that resistance against one's own government, which has turned evil & brutal but still has the support of its military, is not exactly a case in which I'd expect private small arms per se to turn the tide of battle, or have much effect at all compared with other factors, really.