From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Gutting of the Bill of rights
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:16:11 GMT

In article <16up4sINNt11@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.171821.25935@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>>I'm no expert on weaponry or insurrection, but... if push came to
>>shove, would the presence or absence of weapons -- even "assault
>>rifles" -- in the hands of civilians really make much difference to
>>the outcome?  Seems to me that, given the vast manpower and arsenals
>>of the federal military, the National Guard and (to a lesser extent)
>>the conventional police...
>
>Even if all of the Armed Forces and National Guard were to side 
>against the people, they would still have a _very_ hard time: All
>together, they number only about one million people, less than 0.4% of the
>US population (I think this number is combat troops, not including
>support personnel.) A real "popular uprising" would probably involve
>the support (e.g. for food, medical care, etc...) of most of the
>population, and at least 5% of the population actually fighting.
>In such a situation, government forces would be outnumbered 10 to 1 (and
>unlike many modern revolts, the rebels would all be armed.)
>

	Not to mention that the "enemy" is spread out over 3 MILLION+ square
	miles of area.  That translates into one US Armed forces person per
	3 or 4 square mile area.  Of course that's only an average and somewhat
	deceptive a figure, though it also somewhat indicative of the reality
	that a soldier would be facing if they were to be pitted against their
	neighbors.

>A more interesting question is whether or not modern weapons (tanks,
>attack helocopters, etc...), available mostly or entirely to the
>government, would be able to overcome a hostile civilian population
>and a substantial numerical disadvantage. While I'm no expert, I think
>this wouldn't call this a sure thing for the government.

	By no means.  A single bullet *can* take a helicopter down, though
	it is not so likely.  Tanks, while very tough to kill without RPGs
	or serious AP ammo, like depleted Uranium rounds as used in the GAU-8
	rapid fire cannon, are still relatively easy to disable.  Their weakest
	point is the track system.  A mine can takeout a track link and having
	so done, the tank will not be able to move too well.  Even if the track
	is not broken, but significantly damaged, the crew is likely to high
	tail it for base to make repairs as I doubt they'd risk losing mobility
	in a combat area.  After all, they'd HAVE to come out eventually and
	besides an immobilized tank is very vulnerable to things like a weenie
	roast where the tank is the weenie.  Without troops to support the
	vehicle, tanks are not very effective in the long run.

	The biggest threat are the attack aircraft.  The F14/15/16/18/111/111EF
	and the sort.  They can deliver DEVASTATING munitions to their targets
	and with near surgical precision.  The gulf war proved this beyond a
	shadow of a doubt.  And these are MUCH harder to take down, especially
	the A-10s which are damned near indestructible.  Of course there are 
	not enough of these items to effectively fight againt the people,
	though they could sure take one hell of a hurting bite, no doubt.

	The ONLY way to reasonably guarantee success would be to use nukes, but
	this would require the cooperation of those in control, which is by no
	means certain.  Besides, I believe the goal of the Guv would be to
	conquer and control, not destroy.  In addition, how many persons would
	be willing to see their friends and families die in a nuclear 
	holocaust?  Not too many I suspect.  Even the relatively surgical use
	of the smaller tactical nukes would not likely be of great help as it
	would certainly piss a HELL of a lot of people off to no end.  And of
	course there are always the other large and powerful governments of the
	world, like Britain, Russia, France, Germany etc.  That might not sit
	idly by and allow a massacre of the citizens of America to go on
	unchallenged.
	
	And in the final analysis, what would be left to the Guv after dropping
	high yield nukes?  Not much I suspect.  No fun governing a nuclear
	wasteland where most of the people (you know, the ones that are so much
	fun to boss around and impose laws upon) are dead or dying.  It also
	make Sunday afternoon drives in the country a real drag, as well as
	jogging in the morning, not to mention finding something to eat and
	drink.

	And another problem with warring against your own people in general, is
	that you eventually wind up with severe logistical problems, unless of
	course, one or more of our NATO allies were to lend th em a helping 
	hand which is not out of the question, but I'm not sure it is that 
	likely either.  And of course at home factories can be abandoned
	such that the materials necessary for the Guv's prosecution of the
	campaign would become scarce fairly quickly.  Do not forget that the
	more complex the weapons systems are, the more dependent you become
	upon the support structures for such systems and the more complex
	the support structures themselves become.  I would say that in the
	case of going to war with the Guv, it would be IMPERATIVE for them to
	achieve a quick victory.  Quick as in within 6months, perhaps less.
	Otherwise I believe they would find themselves in shit that would grow
	deeper exponentially with time.  I am not sure that outright warfare
	would be a sustainable option for the Guv.  THAT is why they tread so
	carefully and make such judicious use of salami politics.  It takes
	much longer but when properly applied is almost certain to succeed, 
	especially in a land of plenty where the passions of the individual
	can be easily caged by providing multitudinous imbecilic diversions
	and creature comforts like Monday Night Futball, beer and La-Z-Boy
	recliners.  Once the basic strength of character has been effectively
	nullified through material comforts, resulting in extreme complacency,
	the Guv can then move ahead with a program of slowly whittling away
	individual prerogative and having the people actually accept it with
	more or less a sense of entusiasm.  This is precisely where we stand
	this very day, but most Americans are not even DIMLY aware of this.

	WAR??  WHY??  The present means is far more effective and much more
	profitable!

	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41220 talk.politics.theory:3784 alt.politics.elections:11249 alt.politics.marrou:865 alt.politics.bush:2476 misc.education:3195