4 ms·

Small arms are no match for drones and a fully armed military, a successful rebellion by any populace against a first world military is impossible unless the mi

Small arms are no match for drones and a fully armed military, a successful rebellion by any populace against a first world military is impossible unless the military lays their arms down voluntarily, full stop.

protonbob 2y ago
Rebels are able to use techniques that a government never could or would. I think you underestimate the usefulness of small arms in guerilla warfare.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  You underestimate the nasty things goverments have done.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  I think you underestimate the lethality of remotely piloted drones with missiles and IR cameras and the futility of fighting against them.
  - protonbob 2y ago
    You can pretty easily build / buy these. Look at Ukraine. Lots of their drones were just off the shelf. Jamming is super directional and easy to spot so fighting forces use it sparingly.
  - sillywalk 2y ago
    The Taliban would argue otherwise.
filoleg 2y ago
Every time this argument comes up, I just feel like rolling eyes, it is so overplayed. Yes, in a direct confrontation and an all out war, the populace stands no chance against the US military (assuming the military will unwaveringly side against the populace), no argument there. But an all out war is not an option, the government wouldn’t be trying to pulverize an entire nation and leave a rubble in place. If you completely destroy your populace and your cities in an all-out direct war, you got no country and people left to govern. It is all about subjugation and populace control. You can’t achieve this with air strikes that level whole towns. Similarly, if the US wanted to “win” in Afganistan by just glassing the whole region and capturing it, that would be rather quick and easy (from a technical perspective, not from the perspective of political consequences that would follow). Turns out, populace control and compliance are way more tricky to achieve than just capturing land. And while having overwhelming firepower and technological advantage helps with that, it isn’t enough.
- bloqs 2y ago
  I roll my eyes when I see this blissfully naive LARP/mallninja imagined scenario, but I do have to remind myself that the US was founded on the basis of forming a milita etc. and I would probably say the same thing if I had that upbringing. You forget that the vast majority of people are stupid and easily scared (this is not a solvable problem) Help me out - how can policing possibly work if no one is legally required to be policed? You just end up with murderers, rapists etc. expressing their right to "resist" with arms like in spaghetti westerns. It is totally symbolic, and would crumble at the first instance of serious government interest of arresting 'troublemakers', which would of course start with a well crafted PR campaign to get the rest of the public on their side. I think it's naive.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    This feels like a strawman because you’re only hypothesizing a situation in which it wouldn’t work well. Imagine a dark future with a sudden military coup by a small faction of extreme radicals that 85% of the population opposes. could enough citizens rise up and stop them? Could the calculus of being that coup leader be changed by the likelihood that they will be assassinated in short order, by one of millions of potential assassins? Quite possibly. These are not everyday concerns, of course, but the concerns of dark and dangerous times. It’s a bit like buying life insurance: hopefully I never need it.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  A first world military that has remotely piloted drones with IR cameras and other surveillance tools will have no problem crushing any form of resistance. They don’t even need to field any troops, they can remotely kill the rebels. How on earth do you wage a rebellion against such a force?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - filoleg 2y ago
    > How on earth do you wage a rebellion against such a force? I am not an expert, but taliban+al qaeda forces from the Afghanistan war era (that ended in 2021) should be able to provide a solid answer to your question. All I know is that they definitely didn’t make the US give up due to their military tech/firepower advantage, that’s for sure.

protonbob 2y ago

Rebels are able to use techniques that a government never could or would. I think you underestimate the usefulness of small arms in guerilla warfare.

gus_massa 2y ago
You underestimate the nasty things goverments have done.
quickthrowman 2y ago
I think you underestimate the lethality of remotely piloted drones with missiles and IR cameras and the futility of fighting against them.
- protonbob 2y ago
  You can pretty easily build / buy these. Look at Ukraine. Lots of their drones were just off the shelf. Jamming is super directional and easy to spot so fighting forces use it sparingly.
- sillywalk 2y ago
  The Taliban would argue otherwise.

filoleg 2y ago

Every time this argument comes up, I just feel like rolling eyes, it is so overplayed. Yes, in a direct confrontation and an all out war, the populace stands no chance against the US military (assuming the military will unwaveringly side against the populace), no argument there. But an all out war is not an option, the government wouldn’t be trying to pulverize an entire nation and leave a rubble in place. If you completely destroy your populace and your cities in an all-out direct war, you got no country and people left to govern. It is all about subjugation and populace control. You can’t achieve this with air strikes that level whole towns. Similarly, if the US wanted to “win” in Afganistan by just glassing the whole region and capturing it, that would be rather quick and easy (from a technical perspective, not from the perspective of political consequences that would follow). Turns out, populace control and compliance are way more tricky to achieve than just capturing land. And while having overwhelming firepower and technological advantage helps with that, it isn’t enough.

bloqs 2y ago
I roll my eyes when I see this blissfully naive LARP/mallninja imagined scenario, but I do have to remind myself that the US was founded on the basis of forming a milita etc. and I would probably say the same thing if I had that upbringing. You forget that the vast majority of people are stupid and easily scared (this is not a solvable problem) Help me out - how can policing possibly work if no one is legally required to be policed? You just end up with murderers, rapists etc. expressing their right to "resist" with arms like in spaghetti westerns. It is totally symbolic, and would crumble at the first instance of serious government interest of arresting 'troublemakers', which would of course start with a well crafted PR campaign to get the rest of the public on their side. I think it's naive.
- jahewson 2y ago
  This feels like a strawman because you’re only hypothesizing a situation in which it wouldn’t work well. Imagine a dark future with a sudden military coup by a small faction of extreme radicals that 85% of the population opposes. could enough citizens rise up and stop them? Could the calculus of being that coup leader be changed by the likelihood that they will be assassinated in short order, by one of millions of potential assassins? Quite possibly. These are not everyday concerns, of course, but the concerns of dark and dangerous times. It’s a bit like buying life insurance: hopefully I never need it.
quickthrowman 2y ago
A first world military that has remotely piloted drones with IR cameras and other surveillance tools will have no problem crushing any form of resistance. They don’t even need to field any troops, they can remotely kill the rebels. How on earth do you wage a rebellion against such a force?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- filoleg 2y ago
  > How on earth do you wage a rebellion against such a force? I am not an expert, but taliban+al qaeda forces from the Afghanistan war era (that ended in 2021) should be able to provide a solid answer to your question. All I know is that they definitely didn’t make the US give up due to their military tech/firepower advantage, that’s for sure.