Elite fear class war

[jimboston]

In any case, " top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution."

There are plenty of examples in history.

Let’s start with probably the ‘most popular’ revolution in history, the French Revolution.

It was by all definitions of the word a developed nation for the time.

I think the fact that no MODERN developed nation has experienced a revolution backs/supports the point I was making.

[jimboston]

Another point, about governments being too well equipped for a civilian population to deal with.

Look at Vietnam, the most modern military known to man at the time, crushed by people wearing sandals.
Lots of chemical weapons, used big bombers etc etc etc
Look at whats happening in Afghanistan, same thing, the supposedly most vicious military in the world totally defeated by people wearing sandals.
Heck the yanks even dropped the moab.

#1 These were not revolutions.

#2 In neither case was the US Military fighting for its’ survival.... losing would not result in the US folding or falling apart. Because of this our military didn’t really go all out or use all tools available. Essentially, as has been said before, the US military’s hands were tied by the politics. In the case of a revolution the group in power is generally fighting for survival; so usually all options are on the table. (Unless or until the military leadership decides to side with the revolutionaries.

[jimboston]

I dont think mrswdk is trolling, more like he was after a distinction.

In any case, " top of my head I can't think of any time a developed nation has experienced a violent revolution." Wiemar Germany comes to mind, (not supposed to say the political party name as it upsets some people here) but that was a pretty violent revolution in a modern society.

Another point, about governments being too well equipped for a civilian population to deal with.

Look at Vietnam, the most modern military known to man at the time, crushed by people wearing sandals.
Lots of chemical weapons, used big bombers etc etc etc
Look at whats happening in Afghanistan, same thing, the supposedly most vicious military in the world totally defeated by people wearing sandals.
Heck the yanks even dropped the moab.


The point, an under armed underfed population can defeat the most advanced militaries in the world.

The gov knows full well thats the case, which is why the continual effort to disarm the people.

The political party we can not mention as it hurts peoples feelings in the 30s did the same thing, disarmed the people.

In defence of Jim, he did mention the "modern era". It's a vague description, but he has a point that some newer technologies offer governments disproportionate power. New surveillance techniques alone can stop a lot of rebellions before they can even start.

It’s interesting to see people read what they want and ignore what hurts whatever ‘point’ they’re trying to make. I’m pretty specific and careful with my language usually. Thanks for noticing.

[armati]

spurgistan

I dont think that gun control will happen in the states, just the gov will continue to try to implement it.
Thats my point, they try to, govs do disarm citizens, they cant control an armed population.

jimboston

not revolutions, yupper,

my point was an under armed society can defeat a modern fully equipped & trained military.
I figured the implication was obvious.
My bad.

"....it’s interesting to see people read what they want and ignore what hurts whatever ‘point’....?

Again ur correct, I suppose I should have been more clear.

[armati]

jimboston

Without debating the issue i kinda figured your use of the word "developed" nation was implying a modern industrial type development.

With your thinking, ancient Egypt or the Pawnee nations were at one time developed.

True of course but really not the issue today.

[jimboston]

jimboston

Without debating the issue i kinda figured your use of the word "developed" nation was implying a modern industrial type development.

With your thinking, ancient Egypt or the Pawnee nations were at one time developed.

True of course but really not the issue today.

I’d have to go reread my posts... which isn’t worth my time.
I’m fairly certain I made my point clearly the first time around, and may have used a different phrase to address a different point brought up by some troll trying to bait me.

Developed means developed.

Modern means modern.

First World means First World.

Depending on how you use these terms they can sometimes be synonyms, but this isn’t always true.

If I mistakenly used one phrase in place of another I apologize...

... but again, my point is/was (I think) clearly made initially.

[jimboston]

my point was an under armed society can defeat a modern fully equipped & trained military.
I figured the implication was obvious.

I don’t think an under-armed society can truly ‘defeat’ a modern fully equipped & trained military...

Not if that military is allowed to fight with all it’s might.... not if political considerations are put aside.

What an under-armed society or group can do is;
*Delay the modern army, slow them down.
*Raise the political costs by arming civilians or putting civilians in harms way.
*Raise the political cost through use of propaganda... true facts or lies.
*Raise the risks by involving 3rd parties.
*Bloody the superior force or nation through guerrilla tactics and/or terrorism.
*Maybe other things I can’t think of....

These actions make it difficult for the modern force to win, because in our modern world we have to deal with the political ramifications of these military actions in a way nations didn’t have to deal with in the past.

When did things change?
Well not all at once, and historians may disagree... because there were always some political issue... but the modern issues are different. I’d say it changed in the 19th Century drastically... I think you can look at that era and see things like Britain not getting involved in the US Civil War because of political issues at home. Though even as I type this I know that part of the reason the US won the Revolutionary War was because Britain was dealing with dissent at home. So it may have been an issue earlier.

It wasn’t an issue in Rome or Persia or for the Mongols.

... and if the US Military didn’t have to deal with political issues then Korea would’ve been won in 2-3 years max.

[mrswdk]

These actions make it difficult for the modern force to win, because in our modern world we have to deal with the political ramifications of these military actions in a way nations didn’t have to deal with in the past.

It wasn’t an issue in Rome or Persia or for the Mongols.

internal political infighting is the entire reason the Mongol empire collapsed.

Also worth noting that the early Persian attempts to conquer mainland Greece failed in large part because the Persian empire was distracted dealing with rebellions in provinces like Babylonia.

Saying 'ancient empires didn't have to deal with the political ramifications of military action' is like saying 'ancient empires didn't have to deal with keeping their populations happy'. Of course they did.

[armati]

jimboston

Im not sure what your arguing, you said
"Developed means developed.

Modern means modern.

First World means First World."

I think Ive said the same thing
"word "developed" nation was implying a modern industrial type development."

In any case, I simply posted an "elite" saying something has to be done about the inequality or people will react.
I mentioned govs wanting to disarm their populations specifically for that reason.

American gov has made attempts to disarm, I posted examples and under equipped civilians can defeat professional armies, 2 examples.

[jimboston]

These actions make it difficult for the modern force to win, because in our modern world we have to deal with the political ramifications of these military actions in a way nations didn’t have to deal with in the past.

It wasn’t an issue in Rome or Persia or for the Mongols.

internal political infighting is the entire reason the Mongol empire collapsed.

Also worth noting that the early Persian attempts to conquer mainland Greece failed in large part because the Persian empire was distracted dealing with rebellions in provinces like Babylonia.

Saying 'ancient empires didn't have to deal with the political ramifications of military action' is like saying 'ancient empires didn't have to deal with keeping their populations happy'. Of course they did.

Political infighting may have been PART of the reason for the Mongols ultimate collapse...but they were NOT worried about the politics of being ‘too brutal’ to their enemies. Nor was this an issue related in any way to their conquering. If I remember correctly it was mostly a succession crisis. This has nothing to do with ‘weak under-armed people beating superior military force’.

Persian conquering a land, and then having a rebellion in that land 5-10 years later...it’s a stretch to call that an ‘internal’ problem.

I didn’t say that ancient empires didn’t have political issues. I said the issues they dealt with were different and really not related in any way to how aggressive their military was to foreign populations. They did not have to limit the actions of their military in dealing with external populations in order to keep their own people happy. Modern nations do. If anything they wanted their military to be more aggressive to end the war more quickly... having a war drag out was an issue, and that is something that is still a problem; albeit for different reasons.

It’s funny how you like to take a point I make about a fairly narrow subject... and then expand it to encompass a more broader area than the point originally made... and you do this even when I go to great lengths to limit the scope of my statements.

Either you don’t know how to read or you’re being an ass on purpose. Which is it?

[jimboston]

jimboston

Im not sure what your arguing

Me neither

I think Pedobear sidetracked the conversation a bit, and I may have replied to you quickly like you were him/her.

In any case, I simply posted an "elite" saying something has to be done about the inequality or people will react.
I mentioned govs wanting to disarm their populations specifically for that reason.

American gov has made attempts to disarm, I posted examples and under equipped civilians can defeat professional armies, 2 examples.

A few points... don’t think we’re in total disagreement, but maybe on some fine points...

(Other trolls please note... my comments are primarily about modern first world nations, and will not universally apply to every backwater country, nor will the apply generally to nations in all eras. Though I may use knowledge of general history to form my opinions.)

1) I think it’s good that ‘elites’ are at least talking about it. I don’t think most ‘elites’, want to hold their positions by physically oppressing the masses. So if they acknowledge there is discontent among the masses, perhaps they will take note and action to correct this... at least we can hope for that.

2) I think it’s unlikely we are anywhere close to a general uprising of the masses. People (as a whole) don’t topple governments because they don’t like their HMO or are upset they can’t afford Netflix. People topple gov’ts when they can’t feed their kids or after years of oppression. This is generally true for mass uprisings.

There is another type of rebellion, where small numbers of disenfranchised elites rise up against enfranchised elites. These disenfranchised elites can use propaganda to get masses on their side, or they use coercion, or both. Think of The War of the Roses in England or the the US Revolutionary War. These were driven by elites against elites. I don’t think this type of rebellion is the type the OP was about.

3) I don’t see the American gov’t attempting to disarm American people on a grande scale... I see some push for this but the push isn’t by the gov’t it’s by people on one side of a political issue. The American military and even local police so outgun the masses it’s ridiculous... and probably immaterial.

... and yes you can point to small groups of paramilitary, survivalists, etc... or possibly groups like street gangs, black hats, white supremacists, etc. The numbers here are so small and isolated I don’t see them as a threat on any grande scale. Possibly in the future if we have some mass extinction event like all-out war or asteroid strike, but not likely.

4) So the examples you gave of under-armed groups holding off superiors military are correct... my point was that they could only hold off the US military because our military was held back by political forces. If political issues were not a consideration then these forces could’ve been wiped out easily. This includes not caring about civilian casualties. My counter-point may be moot... because the military did and does have to deal with political issues.

5) If there was a mass uprising of the population in a modern first world country, the military would most certainly fracture. (Basically the ultimate political issues.). The gov’t would probably try to deal with it by taking out the leaders, that’d be the only way to ‘maybe’ shut it down. This has happened in history and sometimes is effective and sometimes not. The US military would not en-mass kill large numbers of civilians.

The US military would go wipe out a group of survivalists who were well armed and causing trouble.

If parts of the US military did support the gov’t and crack down on civilians they would not have a significant problem dealing with the guns held by the mass of people in this country. Though gun ownership is not evenly distributed geographically, and there are places were the population is better armed... it’s still not significant enough to slow down the military if the military was all in. 9Though I double they’d ever be ‘all-in’.)

The military may have a bigger problem with the arms held by, state and local police and state militia.

It’s all moot because it ain’t happening anytime soon.

.... maybe in 15-20 years if we start having food shortages due to the impacts of global warming. If people in the military are worried about themselves being fed we could see more willingness to use force (and lethal force) to subdue the population. That’s the only scenario I see were this is anything more than academic debate.