6 ms·

> and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this. I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's

> and who knows what it will look like if we have some kind of civil war out of this. I don't understand mentions of "civil war" in the public lately (there's even a Hollywood movie about it). There is only one party controlling the armed forces. I also doubt that any high-ranking officers would take the troops they command out of the command structure and then even order them to attack the government and other troops. Not to mention that the new administration did some cleanup among the ranks already. The chances for enough, or any, troops breaking away from the command are very low, no? So who is going to fight that "civil war"? It looks to me like the government has overwhelming power. At most I see some troops refuse orders to shoot at the American people, or at other troops. Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jackstraw42 1y ago
Well, I think you did a pretty good job of describing the resources that they are consolidating into that one party that controls the military. For now it's just the National Guard going into cities, but didn't they float the idea of sending Marines to LA? There's so much it's impossible to keep track of what's actually going on. I've always been of the idea that 100 guys with guns gets wiped out with 1 bomb nowadays, so why do individuals arm themselves to the teeth and LARP in the woods? it is looking more like that's going to be a paramilitary arm, or "private consultants" to ICE and CBP. those resources aren't for nothing, and they certainly aren't for taking down the US military. This is a WW2 figure who had a song written about him after he was martyred. It became the anthem of the Nazi party. I didn't ever hear about him in my many years in the US, until a few days ago on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  He already sent active duty marines to Los Angeles, and it was ruled illegal by a judge (after the fact) but it doesn't matter because no one with any real power cares what laws or judges say: https://time.com/7313929/trump-national-guard-la-los-angeles-marines-judge-ruling/ https://time.com/7313929/trump-national-guard-la-los-angeles...
  - fogzen 1y ago
    Most importantly Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman admitted he knew it was illegal and did it anyway. So much for that oath!
overfeed 1y ago
> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Let's see... military drones; satellite surveillance; comms surveillance; giant network of flock cameras vacuuming up facial, descriptive vehicular, and license plate movement data; small-scale tactical nuclear weapons; a huge fleet of hypersonic aircraft and extremely maneuverable helicopters; decades of urban combat experience; militarized law enforcement; the largest military in the world by orders of magnitude fighting on its own turf; complete control of utilities infrastructure, centralized resource creation for food, fuel and weapons; large stockpiles of modern chemical weapons that they wouldn't hesitate to use for a second if it was an existential threat... the world is a very very different place than it was in the 40s, and the modern US military is very very very very very different than any military was back then. Even if you can argue that our power has grown linearly with more access to guns or whatever, the US military's power has grown at a much much faster rate.
  - varjag 1y ago
    Good luck with hypersonic nukes when your patrols are pecked by ambushes and FPV drones in the spaghetti of neighborhoods with opposing alignments.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      Except this violence will absolutely be preceded extensive operations by the giant existing police and national guard presence that knows the neighborhoods like the backs of their hand. They would put a giant dent in that well before a single shot was fired. Would that absolutely be the case if we invaded, say, Canada? Quite likely. The US government has so much existing control on US soil that I'd eat my hat if any US city lasted a week in active conflict.
  - 1y ago
gopher_space 1y ago
Law enforcement and security aren’t really set up for scenarios where random members of the general public want to attack you.
- Jensson 1y ago
  What do you mean? That is exactly what they are trained for, you just do the same thing but even more aggressively. US cops are already pretty aggressive but you can dial that up a lot, they are already trained for this. Tell the cops that they can shoot anyone looking aggressive and not get questioned and they will happily go out and quell any resistance, don't you think? Tell them they can put people in prison without lawyers getting in their way, that they can torture people to speak without anyone stopping them etc. US police is very close to a fascist police already so very little has to change. Remember that the US police culture roots came from policing slaves.
LevGoldstein 1y ago
> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with. We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Assuming like minded people wont self-organize is a bad starting point, and jets and tanks have a tough time doing things like enforcing curfews. That's also ignoring that such a scenario would involve portions of said military force joining the civilian resistance, including those in leadership positions. Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.
- ajuc 1y ago
  You cut off the supplies, and wait 2 weeks. Modern civilization collapses, gangs take over, people ask the army on their knees to return.
- Jensson 1y ago
  > We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Only when the military is not serious since they are not fighting for their own lands and the civilians are backed by another country. When the military is fighting civilians in its own homeland the civilians stand no chance unless they get massive help from foreign powers. > Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly. Even if you do that its still the military that gets to decide the next leader, killing their leader does not lead to democracy. Nazism didn't end with Hitlers death, it ended with the country being taken over. Oppressive Communisms didn't end with Stalins death etc. There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader. An excellent point. Just look at the line of succession to the Presidency right now[0]: No. Office Incumbent Party 1 Vice President JD Vance Republican 2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Republican 3 President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley Republican 4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio Republican 5 Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent Republican 6 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Republican 7 Attorney General Pam Bondi Republican 8 Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum Republican 9 Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Republican 10 Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Republican 11 Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Republican 12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Independent 13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner Republican 14 Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy Republican 15 Secretary of Energy Chris Wright Republican 16 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Republican 17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins Republican 18 Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem Republican Now which one is dedicated to the Constitution/rule of law? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...
theptip 1y ago
If the president shreds the constitution, there would likely be many in the military opposed to it. While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king. You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course. When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.
- ThrowawayR2 1y ago
  Hard to say. "About six-in-ten registered voters who say they have served in the U.S. military or military reserves (61%) support former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, while 37% back Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early September." from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-... The military is not composed of constitutional lawyers and the danger is that they might persuade themselves that the best way to protect the country is to support whoever has at least a façade of legitimacy, particularly if it aligns with their political preferences.
  - theptip 1y ago
    Agreed, but I do think it’s important to distinguish: - voted Trump because they believe the constitution protects us from his worst impulses; would support constitution over Trump - voted Trump and would shred the constitution if they had the opportunity to I think it’s hard to say how many are in each camp. My fear is many tell themselves they are in the first, but will actually end up in the second under the correct manufactured crisis. But the stats and polling would need to go into a lot more detail than what you quoted to distinguish.
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Ask your conservative friends what they think of Mark Milley and his successor.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

jackstraw42 1y ago

Well, I think you did a pretty good job of describing the resources that they are consolidating into that one party that controls the military. For now it's just the National Guard going into cities, but didn't they float the idea of sending Marines to LA? There's so much it's impossible to keep track of what's actually going on. I've always been of the idea that 100 guys with guns gets wiped out with 1 bomb nowadays, so why do individuals arm themselves to the teeth and LARP in the woods? it is looking more like that's going to be a paramilitary arm, or "private consultants" to ICE and CBP. those resources aren't for nothing, and they certainly aren't for taking down the US military. This is a WW2 figure who had a song written about him after he was martyred. It became the anthem of the Nazi party. I didn't ever hear about him in my many years in the US, until a few days ago on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel

ForHackernews 1y ago
He already sent active duty marines to Los Angeles, and it was ruled illegal by a judge (after the fact) but it doesn't matter because no one with any real power cares what laws or judges say: https://time.com/7313929/trump-national-guard-la-los-angeles-marines-judge-ruling/ https://time.com/7313929/trump-national-guard-la-los-angeles...
- fogzen 1y ago
  Most importantly Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman admitted he knew it was illegal and did it anyway. So much for that oath!

overfeed 1y ago

> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight In the 1940s, the DoD published a field manual on how folk with "puny little guns" - or no guns at all - can fight.

DrewADesign 1y ago
Let's see... military drones; satellite surveillance; comms surveillance; giant network of flock cameras vacuuming up facial, descriptive vehicular, and license plate movement data; small-scale tactical nuclear weapons; a huge fleet of hypersonic aircraft and extremely maneuverable helicopters; decades of urban combat experience; militarized law enforcement; the largest military in the world by orders of magnitude fighting on its own turf; complete control of utilities infrastructure, centralized resource creation for food, fuel and weapons; large stockpiles of modern chemical weapons that they wouldn't hesitate to use for a second if it was an existential threat... the world is a very very different place than it was in the 40s, and the modern US military is very very very very very different than any military was back then. Even if you can argue that our power has grown linearly with more access to guns or whatever, the US military's power has grown at a much much faster rate.
- varjag 1y ago
  Good luck with hypersonic nukes when your patrols are pecked by ambushes and FPV drones in the spaghetti of neighborhoods with opposing alignments.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Except this violence will absolutely be preceded extensive operations by the giant existing police and national guard presence that knows the neighborhoods like the backs of their hand. They would put a giant dent in that well before a single shot was fired. Would that absolutely be the case if we invaded, say, Canada? Quite likely. The US government has so much existing control on US soil that I'd eat my hat if any US city lasted a week in active conflict.
- 1y ago

gopher_space 1y ago

Law enforcement and security aren’t really set up for scenarios where random members of the general public want to attack you.

Jensson 1y ago
What do you mean? That is exactly what they are trained for, you just do the same thing but even more aggressively. US cops are already pretty aggressive but you can dial that up a lot, they are already trained for this. Tell the cops that they can shoot anyone looking aggressive and not get questioned and they will happily go out and quell any resistance, don't you think? Tell them they can put people in prison without lawyers getting in their way, that they can torture people to speak without anyone stopping them etc. US police is very close to a fascist police already so very little has to change. Remember that the US police culture roots came from policing slaves.

LevGoldstein 1y ago

> Armed civilians with their puny little guns and little organization are right out as soon as any part of the military joins a fight, that's why I only mentioned the latter to begin with. We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Assuming like minded people wont self-organize is a bad starting point, and jets and tanks have a tough time doing things like enforcing curfews. That's also ignoring that such a scenario would involve portions of said military force joining the civilian resistance, including those in leadership positions. Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly.

ajuc 1y ago
You cut off the supplies, and wait 2 weeks. Modern civilization collapses, gangs take over, people ask the army on their knees to return.
Jensson 1y ago
> We have several recent real-world examples of that not working out for the military. Only when the military is not serious since they are not fighting for their own lands and the civilians are backed by another country. When the military is fighting civilians in its own homeland the civilians stand no chance unless they get massive help from foreign powers. > Besides, I've always hated this argument, because why fight the military when they can just target the politicians directly. Even if you do that its still the military that gets to decide the next leader, killing their leader does not lead to democracy. Nazism didn't end with Hitlers death, it ended with the country being taken over. Oppressive Communisms didn't end with Stalins death etc. There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >There are always enough likeminded people that you can't end a horrible reign just by killing the leader. An excellent point. Just look at the line of succession to the Presidency right now[0]: No. Office Incumbent Party 1 Vice President JD Vance Republican 2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson Republican 3 President pro tempore of the Senate Chuck Grassley Republican 4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio Republican 5 Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent Republican 6 Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth Republican 7 Attorney General Pam Bondi Republican 8 Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum Republican 9 Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins Republican 10 Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Republican 11 Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer Republican 12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Independent 13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner Republican 14 Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy Republican 15 Secretary of Energy Chris Wright Republican 16 Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Republican 17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins Republican 18 Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem Republican Now which one is dedicated to the Constitution/rule of law? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_lin...

theptip 1y ago

If the president shreds the constitution, there would likely be many in the military opposed to it. While they are actively replacing cabinet positions with loyal outsiders that have little-to-no experience within the organizations they now run (eg Patel, Hegseth), I think it’s reasonable to assume that there remains career leaders throughout that would put country before king. You also need to look at loyalty within the rank and file of course. When I talk to conservative friends about this scenario they generally laugh; of course the military would choose country over king. At least for now I think there remains enough institutional integrity that this is plausible.

ThrowawayR2 1y ago
Hard to say. "About six-in-ten registered voters who say they have served in the U.S. military or military reserves (61%) support former President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, while 37% back Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in early September." from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-veterans-remain-a-republican-group-backing-trump-over-harris-by-wide-margin/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/30/military-... The military is not composed of constitutional lawyers and the danger is that they might persuade themselves that the best way to protect the country is to support whoever has at least a façade of legitimacy, particularly if it aligns with their political preferences.
- theptip 1y ago
  Agreed, but I do think it’s important to distinguish: - voted Trump because they believe the constitution protects us from his worst impulses; would support constitution over Trump - voted Trump and would shred the constitution if they had the opportunity to I think it’s hard to say how many are in each camp. My fear is many tell themselves they are in the first, but will actually end up in the second under the correct manufactured crisis. But the stats and polling would need to go into a lot more detail than what you quoted to distinguish.
anigbrowl 1y ago
Ask your conservative friends what they think of Mark Milley and his successor.