Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
12. It's not that simple.
Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:20 AM
Jul 2012

I assume that by "state security apparatus" you're referring to the military (since the combined police forces would be nowhere near adequate). While it's true that the US military would be more than a match for any conceivable citizen uprising, that presumes an intact military willing to follow orders to suppress said uprising. I don't think that's a sound presumption.

In any plausible scenario of mass uprising, one that involved a substantial portion of the population, there is no reason to believe that members of the military wouldn't support an uprising in similar proportion. That would mean defections, with the defectors bringing whatever ordnance they could over to the other side.

More importantly, it would mean loss of unit cohesion and overall fragmentation. This is critical, because a fragmented military, with a badly disrupted logistics system can't operate and maintain complex, sophisticated systems (like communication networks, air and artillery support, etc.) for very long at all. These are the things that give a modern military its real advantage over insurgents.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The 2nd Amendment means t...»Reply #12