Alternate Reality: American Distopia...

[Missourian]

Rightwinger and I were debating in another thread and this was posted.

So, lets entertain your fantasy and let you take up arms against your country. What would happen?

You are an untrained, undersupplied, civilian facing the mightiest fighting force in the history of mankind. Your hunting rifles and shotguns will go up against armor and attack helicopters with night vision and infrared targeting

Your arming yourself to someday fight an evil government is a delusion

So, here is the background...

The setting is a Turtledovian alternate timeline Amerika...the Emperor of the United States has dissolved Congress and voided the Bill of Rights via Imperial Dicta.

Everything else is exactly the same.

Could a civilian revolution be successful?

 

[RoccoR]

Missourian, et al,

Like with most hypotheticals, it depends!

Rightwinger and I were debating in another thread and this was posted.

So, lets entertain your fantasy and let you take up arms against your country. What would happen?

You are an untrained, undersupplied, civilian facing the mightiest fighting force in the history of mankind. Your hunting rifles and shotguns will go up against armor and attack helicopters with night vision and infrared targeting

Your arming yourself to someday fight an evil government is a delusion

So, here is the background...

The setting is a Turtledovian alternate timeline Amerika...the Emperor of the United States has dissolved Congress and voided the Bill of Rights via Imperial Dicta.

Everything else is exactly the same.

Could a civilian revolution be successful?

(COMMENT)

The success or failure of an anti-government movement depends on how deep, how widespread, and how much of the pre-Imperial forces fell to the power and influence of the Emperor.

BLUF: Could a civilian revolution be successful? YES

If all the state and local police, intelligence and security forces (all) fell under the Imperial control, and were dedicated to that end, THEN, it would take time and leadership. Federal forces are not very good at insurgencies. And state & local forces can be overwhelmed, even by out-gunned insurgents. It is a matter of numbers and strategies. The technologies that give federal, state and local police, intelligence and security forces an advantage are vulnerable. Imperial C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) are very infrastructure dependent. All governments, including the Imperial Forces need funding, and that is vulnerable.

There are simply too many former police, intelligence and security forces in the general population; with greater experiences, that know how to establish effective countermeasures; employ small unit tactics; and have the ability to work semi-autonomously; against critical Imperial essentials; for the Imperial Forces to maintain a sphere of control for an indefinite period of time.

What police, intelligence and security forces are not individually neutralized at the unit level, will begin to defect to anti-government leadership. For each police, intelligence and security force at the unit level that falls, the anti-government movement will acquire greater and great resources and critical intelligence on Imperial activity.

For sure, it would get ugly, but in the end, Imperial Forces will begin to deteriorate from the bottom up. At the same time, individual key personalities at the upper echelon of the Imperial Forces will come under increased targeting. They will become isolated, and unable to function at a socialite level; becoming trapped like a dog in a yard.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Oldguy]

Missourian, et al,

Like with most hypotheticals, it depends!

Rightwinger and I were debating in another thread and this was posted.

So, lets entertain your fantasy and let you take up arms against your country. What would happen?

You are an untrained, undersupplied, civilian facing the mightiest fighting force in the history of mankind. Your hunting rifles and shotguns will go up against armor and attack helicopters with night vision and infrared targeting

Your arming yourself to someday fight an evil government is a delusion

So, here is the background...

The setting is a Turtledovian alternate timeline Amerika...the Emperor of the United States has dissolved Congress and voided the Bill of Rights via Imperial Dicta.

Everything else is exactly the same.

Could a civilian revolution be successful?

(COMMENT)

The success or failure of an anti-government movement depends on how deep, how widespread, and how much of the pre-Imperial forces fell to the power and influence of the Emperor.

BLUF: Could a civilian revolution be successful? YES

If all the state and local police, intelligence and security forces (all) fell under the Imperial control, and were dedicated to that end, THEN, it would take time and leadership. Federal forces are not very good at insurgencies. And state & local forces can be overwhelmed, even by out-gunned insurgents. It is a matter of numbers and strategies. The technologies that give federal, state and local police, intelligence and security forces an advantage are vulnerable. Imperial C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) are very infrastructure dependent. All governments, including the Imperial Forces need funding, and that is vulnerable.

There are simply too many former police, intelligence and security forces in the general population; with greater experiences, that know how to establish effective countermeasures; employ small unit tactics; and have the ability to work semi-autonomously; against critical Imperial essentials; for the Imperial Forces to maintain a sphere of control for an indefinite period of time.

What police, intelligence and security forces are not individually neutralized at the unit level, will begin to defect to anti-government leadership. For each police, intelligence and security force at the unit level that falls, the anti-government movement will acquire greater and great resources and critical intelligence on Imperial activity.

For sure, it would get ugly, but in the end, Imperial Forces will begin to deteriorate from the bottom up. At the same time, individual key personalities at the upper echelon of the Imperial Forces will come under increased targeting. They will become isolated, and unable to function at a socialite level; becoming trapped like a dog in a yard.

Most Respectfully,
R

The chief vulnerability of any modern fighting force, and the easiest for an insurgency to get at, is fuel. Interrupt the supply, and the army grinds to a halt in pretty short order.

 

[AmyNation]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

 

[TNHarley]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

They would never be on his side

 

[AmyNation]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

They would never be on his side

And we would never have a dictator.

We are the worlds mightiest nation, there is no way other nations would allow us to quietly slip into a dictatorship, we have too much military power for them to allow it.

So, if we were living in alternate reality, where a dictator has taken over, then that person has to have the strength of our military and enough ally nations to be confident that our nation won't be immediately invaded by others.

 

[Missourian]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

He has the military leadership...the conscripts...some yes and some not so much.

He also has UN "peace keeping" forces under his total control.

I'd say that's not too far afield from reality.

 

[Missourian]

Missourian, et al,

Like with most hypotheticals, it depends!

Rightwinger and I were debating in another thread and this was posted.

So, lets entertain your fantasy and let you take up arms against your country. What would happen?

You are an untrained, undersupplied, civilian facing the mightiest fighting force in the history of mankind. Your hunting rifles and shotguns will go up against armor and attack helicopters with night vision and infrared targeting

Your arming yourself to someday fight an evil government is a delusion

So, here is the background...

The setting is a Turtledovian alternate timeline Amerika...the Emperor of the United States has dissolved Congress and voided the Bill of Rights via Imperial Dicta.

Everything else is exactly the same.

Could a civilian revolution be successful?

(COMMENT)

The success or failure of an anti-government movement depends on how deep, how widespread, and how much of the pre-Imperial forces fell to the power and influence of the Emperor.

BLUF: Could a civilian revolution be successful? YES

If all the state and local police, intelligence and security forces (all) fell under the Imperial control, and were dedicated to that end, THEN, it would take time and leadership. Federal forces are not very good at insurgencies. And state & local forces can be overwhelmed, even by out-gunned insurgents. It is a matter of numbers and strategies. The technologies that give federal, state and local police, intelligence and security forces an advantage are vulnerable. Imperial C3ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) are very infrastructure dependent. All governments, including the Imperial Forces need funding, and that is vulnerable.

There are simply too many former police, intelligence and security forces in the general population; with greater experiences, that know how to establish effective countermeasures; employ small unit tactics; and have the ability to work semi-autonomously; against critical Imperial essentials; for the Imperial Forces to maintain a sphere of control for an indefinite period of time.

What police, intelligence and security forces are not individually neutralized at the unit level, will begin to defect to anti-government leadership. For each police, intelligence and security force at the unit level that falls, the anti-government movement will acquire greater and great resources and critical intelligence on Imperial activity.

For sure, it would get ugly, but in the end, Imperial Forces will begin to deteriorate from the bottom up. At the same time, individual key personalities at the upper echelon of the Imperial Forces will come under increased targeting. They will become isolated, and unable to function at a socialite level; becoming trapped like a dog in a yard.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is an excellent post.

 

[Oldguy]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

He has the military leadership...the conscripts...some yes and some not so much.

He also has UN "peace keeping" forces under his total control.

I'd say that's not too far afield from reality.

Oh, please. Show me the evidence of that.

 

[Missourian]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

He has the military leadership...the conscripts...some yes and some not so much.

He also has UN "peace keeping" forces under his total control.

I'd say that's not too far afield from reality.

Oh, please. Show me the evidence of that.

Evidence of what? This is a theoretical exercise.

 

[AmyNation]

There is no way a dictator takes over the US, without having an assurance that he has the Military on his side, and strong enough allies to be assured of no outside intervention from other nations.

So no, a group of civilians with guns stands no chance.

He has the military leadership...the conscripts...some yes and some not so much.

He also has UN "peace keeping" forces under his total control.

I'd say that's not too far afield from reality.

Oh, please. Show me the evidence of that.

"He" is our future dictator, not based in reality. We're using our

 

[Oldguy]

Oh...role playing. That comment I responded to sounded more "real."

My apologies.

However, I'd like to add a word of caution. Other people besides y'all may read this. Don't give the Armed Nutter Brigade any ideas.

Loose lips sink ships, you know.

 

[Missourian]

Oh...role playing. That comment I responded to sounded more "real."

My apologies.

However, I'd like to add a word of caution. Other people besides y'all may read this. Don't give the Armed Nutter Brigade any ideas.

Loose lips sink ships, you know.

Earlier I was thinking about posting something I had seen once, but decided against it using a similar rationale...but I was thinking about foreign terrorists.

Obviously your fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights are much, MUCH more dangerous...my mistake.

 

[Oldguy]

Oh...role playing. That comment I responded to sounded more "real."

My apologies.

However, I'd like to add a word of caution. Other people besides y'all may read this. Don't give the Armed Nutter Brigade any ideas.

Loose lips sink ships, you know.

Earlier I was thinking about posting something I had seen once, but decided against it using a similar rationale...but I was thinking about foreign terrorists.

Obviously your fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights are much, MUCH more dangerous...my mistake.

They are when they take up arms against the democratically elected government simply because they're already here.

 

[Missourian]

Oh...role playing. That comment I responded to sounded more "real."

My apologies.

However, I'd like to add a word of caution. Other people besides y'all may read this. Don't give the Armed Nutter Brigade any ideas.

Loose lips sink ships, you know.

Earlier I was thinking about posting something I had seen once, but decided against it using a similar rationale...but I was thinking about foreign terrorists.

Obviously your fellow citizens exercising their constitutional rights are much, MUCH more dangerous...my mistake.

They are when they take up arms against the democratically elected government simply because they're already here.

No one has "taken up arms against the democratically elected government" of the United States, nor has anyone proposed doing so.

The argument that is being made is that the 2nd Amendment is a deterrent to tyranny and despotism.

A last resort, after all peaceful means are exhausted.

Free and fair elections are a peaceful means...therefore, peaceful means are not exhausted...therefore a "last resort" is not required.

Anyone who thinks that either side could "win" this kind of conflict needs to define what winning consists of.

IMO, winning consist of making the conflict so costly that it never needs to be fought.

To that end, the 2nd Amendment has historically been construed to demand that it is an individuals right to own weapons consistent with military firearms.

Read Miller v. United States.

 

[MaryL]

We have more to fear from Americans bearing firearms than from fictional governmental oppression. If you don't like the current regime wait four years and vote again. As far as hypotheticals are concerned, what IF the second Amendment was never written? Would it hurt people NOT to own a gun? Really? HOW? Other THAN a hypothetical way.

 

[Mushroom]

The setting is a Turtledovian alternate timeline Amerika...the Emperor of the United States has dissolved Congress and voided the Bill of Rights via Imperial Dicta.

Everything else is exactly the same.

Could a civilian revolution be successful?

Well, I am a long-time avid reader of Mr. Turtledove, but I find this rather troubling because the set-up is really vague. And it really does make little sense.

You talk about vacating the "Bill of Rights". But if we had an Emperor, already by default we would no longer have a Constitution since one negates the other.

And when did this Emperor come into existance? Prior to the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. And such a position was illegal then as well. SO I can only assume the divergence element was prior to 1776.

One thing about Mr. Turtledove is that he normally has a rather small change happen, and everything spins out from there. I see this as a rather large change, so the two really do not meet up.

However, to continue your concept, an overthrow of a government is always possible. All that is needed is either enough of the population that wants to see it done, or assistance from an outside source to make such a thing happen.

And remember, simply the existance of an Emperor does not mean that there is no "Bill of Rights". In fact, the United States did not even create that phrase, we borrowed it from the British. There is no doubt that Britan was an Empire. Yet they still had the "Bill of RIghts of 1689", passed by Parlaiment (which was also guaranteed).

I think that you are largely misguided in the concept that an "Emperor" would be some kind of "Ultimate ruler", and this is simply not the case. Even the Caesars had to deal with the Senate. And the Emperor of Britan had to deal with Parlaiment. So would an Emperor of the United States have to deal with his own Parlaiment/Senate. And the attempt to dispose of such (or the "Bill of Rights", no matter what form it took in this mutated timeline) would likely lead to a massive revolt. Much as if Mad King George tried to dismiss Parlaiment, toss out the Bill of Rights, or vacate the Magna Carta.