>The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Well both could be important for different reasons. If the "public" is the "enemy" for whatever re

>The question we should be asking other than "who" is "why?" Well both could be important for different reasons. If the "public" is the "enemy" for whatever reason as to why, if members of the "public" wanted to act in some way, the "public" would probably be more effective, in whatever their aims may be tactically, than do so otherwise without having a "who". >…The end result would look not terribly unlike the first of the Hunger Games films, with a few high-tech enclaves and a vast population living in medieval squalor. There's your civil unrest requiring over 400,000 troops. And such a force would be reliant upon and even larger supportive effort of some population. For such force could be initially effective, but if the "enemy" is all around such a force and one is reliant upon that "enemy", long term it isn't an effective solution. I think sun tzu works might be more informative as a source on such compared to works generated for dubious entertainment value.