Armed Citizenry vs. A Nameless Dictator

[Farnan]

This thread is taken from the Gun control thread, since our argument got a little off topic. Can an Armed Citizenry defeat a dictatorship. The combat takes place in the United States, only because we are one of the few countries that has the least gun control. Do you think an armed citizenry has any chance against the dictator, or do you think it will be easily crushed?

Here is my opinion: An armed citizenry has a good chance of winning as long as its not lead by idiots. The rebels would retreat into the hills and woods. From there they will harass government forces, acquiring additional equipment from fallen troops. The rebels will have advantage of the knowledge of the terrain. To crush a domestic rebellion a dictator is likely to send party soldiers (SS, Black Shirts, Republican Guard) from a different part of the country to avoid conflict of loyalty. Because of this the rebels will be able to ambush the government forces, then flee to a safe position. The rebels have time on their side, the longer they last the weaker the dictator looks. Also, by showing an armed rebellion, it helps Americans-in-Exile argue the case about the unpopularity of the dictator.

[imb39]

Given modern technology and providing the army didn't defect in any meaningful way, I think that the rebels would lose. Best bet would be to try and integrate and use explosives - be terrorists (*shriek*horror*) rather than forming a rebellion army, insurgants if you will.

[Farnan]

Terroism doesn't work in the long run, the goal of a rebellion is not to outfight, but to outlast. If a rebellion uses terrorism, it loses international support. The American Army lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution, but won the war because of international support.

So you know, I am not a right-wing militiaman. I don't advocate rebellion against the current government, but against a hypothetical coup installing a dictator.

[MadBurgerMaker]

If the army didnt defect in a meaningful way, sure..they would win the outright battles. With an all volunteer army (from all over the country), however, you cant count on not having large scale defections, especially when theyre being told to shoot fellow citizens.

Also, the government probably wouldnt be able to count on National Guard units and various reserve units for outright conflict with normal civilians, since, for the most part, the National Guard and Reservists ARE civilians, generally from the local area, and most likely wouldnt want to be slaughtering their neighbors. What could very probably happen is some, if not most of those National Guard units would end up fighting FOR the civilians AGAINST the Government, and many reservists would probably end up joining up with those National Guard units.

That means the "anti government" forces have heavy armor, air cover, etc, on their side as well as a large number of armed civilians.

Now if you just want to look at armed citizens, well..they just need to keep the movement going long enough so that outside forces intervene on their behalf, as you say Farnan. Thats very possible, and actually quite likely, if a significant portion of the population in the United States were involved.

[Kanaric]

Terroism doesn't work in the long run, the goal of a rebellion is not to outfight, but to outlast. If a rebellion uses terrorism, it loses international support. The American Army lost nearly every battle in the American Revolution, but won the war because of international support.

So you know, I am not a right-wing militiaman. I don't advocate rebellion against the current government, but against a hypothetical coup installing a dictator.

You could look at it another way. If the people in the country are so pro-"terrorist" or in this case revolutionary it would be impossible to occupy the country in the long run and they eventually have to receive their freedom.

Vietnam, Ireland, etc. terrorism in those countries WORKED in the long run simply because of government retaliation and the fact that the people were always for the "terrorists".

[First Crusader]

This is a good followup on my thread, Farnan!

By fighting in the jungles, I believe you have Vietnam in mind. But in many places, the "urban jungle" is also a great place to hide, as long as the people sympathize with you.

[Farnan]

Yes, but it is easy to cordon off a city, and restrict the rebels, to a certain point, thus neutralizing the rebellion or at least weaken it. Also, city has too many people, only one needs to be sympathetic to the government to be disatorous.

[danzig]

Honestly I think it would be impossible given the size of the US, I mean think about it if estimates were the US should have used 450,000 troops for Iraq a country of what 25 million? Imagine the US and its sheer size. Only way for a dictator to work in the US is to do it nonviolent, to convince people they were doing it for their own benfit and using 'secret police' to remove troublemakers. Armed conflict with be suicidal and extremely messy. Military defections would be huge, also you have to take into account police forces some that are quite large (LAPD, NYPD). Believe there was an article awhile back that estimated the NYPD could most likely tie up a military division almost indefinately with urban combat.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Honestly I think it would be impossible given the size of the US, I mean think about it if estimates were the US should have used 450,000 troops for Iraq a country of what 25 million? Imagine the US and its sheer size. Only way for a dictator to work in the US is to do it nonviolent, to convince people they were doing it for their own benfit and using 'secret police' to remove troublemakers. Armed conflict with be suicidal and extremely messy. Military defections would be huge, also you have to take into account police forces some that are quite large (LAPD, NYPD). Believe there was an article awhile back that estimated the NYPD could most likely tie up a military division almost indefinately with urban combat.

Oh wow. Good point. I had forgotten about the local police forces. Every major city in the country has a relatively large and heavily armed police force, and every smaller city, town, village, whatever has their share of local cops.

[Muizer]

Armed conflict with be suicidal and extremely messy. Military defections would be huge, also you have to take into account police forces some that are quite large (LAPD, NYPD). Believe there was an article awhile back that estimated the NYPD could most likely tie up a military division almost indefinately with urban combat.

Yes, but this wasn't about the question "Could an individual in a powerful position (a politician or someone prominent in the military) seize power by military means. One might wonder about the use of discussing a scenario that sees a dictator already in place if one does not also assume that the core of the military, police and secret services etc. have a vested interest in maintaining that regime.

Muizer

[Major König]

If were speaking of the US, no. The gang members, home'owners, farmers, criminals, that we are generalising into a class we call rebels, cannot win. They cannot be led, because of pride, inability to work together, and lack of leaders that can relate to all the small groups(Hannibal etc). Lack of heavy weapons. In this age, heavy weapons and armour are a deciding factor. Rebels wouldn´t have any, if any, of these. Airpower, etc. Terrain can be figured out by today´s maps, very accurate. The only problem would be city fighting, which would eventually be won by the troops who have the better weapons, organisation, training, and morale.

[Farnan]

If were speaking of the US, no. The gang members, home'owners, farmers, criminals, that we are generalising into a class we call rebels, cannot win. They cannot be led, because of pride, inability to work together, and lack of leaders that can relate to all the small groups(Hannibal etc). Lack of heavy weapons. In this age, heavy weapons and armour are a deciding factor. Rebels wouldn´t have any, if any, of these. Airpower, etc. Terrain can be figured out by today´s maps, very accurate. The only problem would be city fighting, which would eventually be won by the troops who have the better weapons, organisation, training, and morale.

By rebels, we mean people, who in the hypothetical situation there is a coup, and a dictator is put in power, would combat such a dictator. As I said before, there is no need for the rebellion to win, it just can't lose. If it stays alive long enough then the dictator will eventually seem weak, and then the people will see that maybe he isn't invicible. I am not sure, which way the majority of the army goes, but looking at many dictators it seems they have a private army loyal to them instead of the state, such as the Black Shirts under Mussolini.

About terrain being figured out by a map, personal knowledge is still better. I know that there are hundreds of small streams and other features not shown on a map or GPS.

[Pra]

This thread is taken from the Gun control thread, since our argument got a little off topic. Can an Armed Citizenry defeat a dictatorship. The combat takes place in the United States, only because we are one of the few countries that has the least gun control. Do you think an armed citizenry has any chance against the dictator, or do you think it will be easily crushed?

Here is my opinion: An armed citizenry has a good chance of winning as long as its not lead by idiots. The rebels would retreat into the hills and woods. From there they will harass government forces, acquiring additional equipment from fallen troops. The rebels will have advantage of the knowledge of the terrain. To crush a domestic rebellion a dictator is likely to send party soldiers (SS, Black Shirts, Republican Guard) from a different part of the country to avoid conflict of loyalty. Because of this the rebels will be able to ambush the government forces, then flee to a safe position. The rebels have time on their side, the longer they last the weaker the dictator looks. Also, by showing an armed rebellion, it helps Americans-in-Exile argue the case about the unpopularity of the dictator.

The situation in itself is far too hypothetical. Superior technology, especially if piloted by those who are familiar with local terrain can dismantle any effective guerilla fighting. Moreover, an effective combatant to guerilla fighting is the brutality of those nameless dictators on the citizenry. This brutality may turn the citizenry against the guerillas and may dismantle public support for it. Finally, if the dictatorship is able to control neccessary resources for sustainance, then the guerilla leadership will fall in on itself.

However, this consequences does not dismiss the validity of the Second Amendment. This Amendment is an important part of both our society and our Governmental Structure.

Oh wow. Good point. I had forgotten about the local police forces. Every major city in the country has a relatively large and heavily armed police force, and every smaller city, town, village, whatever has their share of local cops.

This and the aforementioned quoted statement is based on the assumption that the police force will comply with the government. Who is to say that said tyranny could establish itself with widespread popular support and could earn itself the support of local police groups?

Perhaps, this tyrrany could be checked if we had a more 'militia' type army, an army that is professional but does not ally itself to the Commander in Chief, but to the populace of this nation.

[Virgil]

In addition, unlike other countries that have civil wars and rebellions, the US is fairly demilitarized. There are no obvious entry points for black market weapons, RPGs, automatic weapons. The US is islolated, Canada has less weapons then we do. The only way for weapons to get in would be from mexico. This is assuming land transport only as a dictator would have control of the skys and water ways more effectively than a president would. The US's lack of automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers or any sort of mine limits significantly the civilian's armored vehicle busting abilites. It would require massed defctions as previously stated in order for the rebels to have any chance of winning.

Besides, even if a military dictator was in power, I think even active fron line troops would defect and it would end up more a civil war than a rebellion. Just me two cents yar!

[Erik]

It all comes down to popular support.

When you say tyrant you mean somebody with little or no popular support, with only the military on his side?
No, such a person could never win.
And not because many americans own guns but because you can't control a nation with just military force, at least not for long.

This is however a very unlikely scenario because the military would never support such a person.
Soliers have friends and family back home too, they aren't going to attack them.

It's much more likely that the tyrant is somebody like Adolf Hitler, somebody with huge popular support.
If you assume 80% of all americans support the tyrant, and 20% is fighting him I think the tyrant has a good chance of winning.
Anything less wil just end up in a very long conflict with many deaths on both sides, and no winner.

[Zuwxiv]

I believe it comes down to, "Do the rebels have popular support?"

Not as in 49%, you lose, 51%, you win... 30% of a country's populace could defeat the military, as long as less than 10% of the rest of the country doesn't join the enemy. (Total numbers must be somewhere near: Rebels outnumber military 5:1 and other citizens against them 2:1)

A military can never defeat an idea, and if they just start raiding homes and killing people that are involved, it will make them look worse. If the rebels have good leadership, can get a good number of weapons, etc, then they can win. Hell, I would guess that 100 of the best-supplied, best trained civilians with the best leader in history could defeat the US. Right now we have wavering support, a rebellious populace, and a rising debt.

Those 100 would have to be extremely well used, though... Suprise attacks on the Pentagon and major army bases using cutting edge technology to attack silently and leave undetected. EMP'S to take out communication, aircraft, naval, etc. What would the army in Iraq and Afghanistan do if almost every general and commander was killed, and their communication destroyed?

Get some civilians to incite panic.. Cut power lines, communication, water, anything that people would think is the government's responsibility to help them with. Overwhelm the government. Even if the people know that you destroyed their water main, if you were the only person who had water they would join you.

Also add an extremely effective government of the rebels.

[First Crusader]

No one has pointed out some of the consequences of fighting these guerrillas. The only way to crush them, especially if they seize control of a city, would be to use large amounts of deadly force on an urban area. This will result in the deaths of many "small fry", but the important leaders of the rebellion will probably escape.

The consequences of such a "Falhuja" style action? The rebels who survive would be hardened veterans, possibly even having equipment looted from dead government troopers. Worse still, many innocents would die, making a lot of people unhappy with the brutality of the regime, greatly increasing the size of the rebel recruitment pool.

The only way to squelch such a rebellion without using large amounts of deadly force is a secret police, like someone else here mentioned. Unfortunately, it is immensely difficult to build such an organization. Heck, the secret service we have right now couldn't even find the commies wreaking havoc in our government for 20 years. So I doubt it would be much use against a wide spread insurgency.

Such a scenario shouldn't be compared to the war on terror. All you have to do in the war on terror is keep an eye on radical Muslims. But in an insurgency against a tyranny, a rebel could be a person of any race, and of any creed. Racial profiling would be totally useless.

[Tiwaz]

No one has pointed out some of the consequences of fighting these guerrillas. The only way to crush them, especially if they seize control of a city, would be to use large amounts of deadly force on an urban area. This will result in the deaths of many "small fry", but the important leaders of the rebellion will probably escape.

The consequences of such a "Falhuja" style action? The rebels who survive would be hardened veterans, possibly even having equipment looted from dead government troopers. Worse still, many innocents would die, making a lot of people unhappy with the brutality of the regime, greatly increasing the size of the rebel recruitment pool.

The only way to squelch such a rebellion without using large amounts of deadly force is a secret police, like someone else here mentioned. Unfortunately, it is immensely difficult to build such an organization. Heck, the secret service we have right now couldn't even find the commies wreaking havoc in our government for 20 years. So I doubt it would be much use against a wide spread insurgency.

Such a scenario shouldn't be compared to the war on terror. All you have to do in the war on terror is keep an eye on radical Muslims. But in an insurgency against a tyranny, a rebel could be a person of any race, and of any creed. Racial profiling would be totally useless.

Problem is... To actually look dangerous rebellion has to ACHIEVE something. Shot from rifle now and then isn't sign of working, winning rebellion. You have to do bigger.

Problem with bigger is that it causes civilian casualties. Someone suggested something like commando raids against pentagon and military bases... Way to go, guys going off on those missons won't be coming back.

Reality check: Supercommando Bob is going to attack military base. He has to deal with any, if not all, of these... Soldiers patrolling, mines, wire fences (electricity/alarm included), night vision goggles, IR cameras, cameras, guard dogs... Shall I go on? Military bases and important structures in dictatorships tend to be practically impenetrable fortresses. Rebellion would be limited to strikes against the troops in open areas and would become much like Iraq resistance. Roadside bombs, ambuses on patrols outside bases and so on. These would definitely bring with them also civilian casualties and that can work both for and against rebels. It's basically up to luck who the victims and families of victims start to hate more, rebels or troops. With troops being foreigners and rebels being locals chances are better for hatred to be directed against troops but it is not guaranteened.

By the way, same reasons why supercommando Bob fails on his supercommandoraid on military base is why hit&fade outside residential areas fails. All it takes is one hind-type gunship with IR camera to hunt down the rebels in the terrain. (Hind because apache is pathetically armoured and armed for going against infantry unlike Hind which can basically sit on enemies armed with light weaponry and blow them to pieces)

[Trey]

It all comes down to popular support. If the rebels have the popular support, all they have to do is outlast the dictator. They would also have to use "terrorist" type tactics, such as blowing up police stations and doing hit-and-run attacks. Things like "hiding in the hills" would never work these days, assuming they fought the military. They would just be blown to pieces. It would end up looking how Iraq is now.

[Kanaric]

If a dictator was able to come into power in a country like the US in the first place the majority of the citizenry would of been behind them, therefore this topic is moot.

Legitimate groups would be supplied by foreign countries as well. Which would result in a more organized movement with direct goals and a higher chance of achieving them. Also they would have foreign support in the form of training, among other things.

Gun control is a non-factor. Look at Pakistan, they can't control the flow of guns AT ALL and they are a dictatorship that is hated by the people. Also in Iraq, no armed uprising worked their.

If anything it would help the dictatorship to maintain control of the country, if it were invaded their would be insurgents Iraq-style until the people accept democracy. However who would get that far in invading America? I can see a rampage of nukes before that occurs. As a result gun control has no effect, WHAT SO EVER, on this.

edit: Also I can see a dictatorship coming into power because of lack of gun controls. Like if their was a 2nd great depression and the people weren't assisted by government. "Armed workers brigades" could EASILY form as large militia groups that are trying to establish a communist dictatorship. Kind of like the Russian revolution except you wouldn't need parts of the army to back you or to be dissillusioned.