Also, “just topple the state governments” as if most US states aren’t larger + more dispersed than many European countries. And state (and sometimes local) police have access to second hand military equipment.
Then even putting that aside, the US interstate system was quite literally designed to expedite military logistics. The Federal government could have tanks rolling down the streets of any major city in single-digit hours.
However, the size of the country is a double edged sword. Locking down areas outside of populated cities would take a lot of sustained resources. Combine that with the sheer volume of firearms in the hands of private citizens and you have a recipe for festering unrest. Actual violent resistance in the US would be a different beast from what you see in other countries.
Yeah. i should clarify “easy to revolt” is only in relative terms. Any uprising against a regime that doesn’t crumble right away is a bloody and difficult endeavor. That is why usually people only get to that point, when their basic livelihood is in immediate danger.
Still i think that the US has the unique situation of having relatively well armed civilians. So where in other countries you have unarmed mass protests that get shot down by the regime, followed by improvised weapons until the people manage to arm themselves from seized government stocks… In the US you have a mayor head start. Finally when it comes to the regime cracking down on people, the risk-reward calculation of police and soldiers can quickly change from shooting at the crowd to joining the crowd, if the crowd is armed.
In the end after each regime falls, the lessons is “if we had banded together earlier and fought them right away, a lot of bloodshed and destruction could have been prevented.”
Still i think that the US has the unique situation of having relatively well armed civilians
This is a double-edged sword. In other countries the government is really reluctant to have the military shoot protesters, because the protesters are civilians and, pretty much by definition, unarmed. If the police or military do shoot protesters, the undecided public is very likely to turn against the government for slaughtering innocent, unarmed civilians.
In the US, police are terrified of civilians, and are more than willing to shoot them. Civilians are fairly likely to be armed, so if the government claims that the civilians shot first, a lot of people will believe them.
Guess who those thinly populated areas voted for…
Also, “just topple the state governments” as if most US states aren’t larger + more dispersed than many European countries. And state (and sometimes local) police have access to second hand military equipment.
Then even putting that aside, the US interstate system was quite literally designed to expedite military logistics. The Federal government could have tanks rolling down the streets of any major city in single-digit hours.
However, the size of the country is a double edged sword. Locking down areas outside of populated cities would take a lot of sustained resources. Combine that with the sheer volume of firearms in the hands of private citizens and you have a recipe for festering unrest. Actual violent resistance in the US would be a different beast from what you see in other countries.
Yeah. i should clarify “easy to revolt” is only in relative terms. Any uprising against a regime that doesn’t crumble right away is a bloody and difficult endeavor. That is why usually people only get to that point, when their basic livelihood is in immediate danger.
Still i think that the US has the unique situation of having relatively well armed civilians. So where in other countries you have unarmed mass protests that get shot down by the regime, followed by improvised weapons until the people manage to arm themselves from seized government stocks… In the US you have a mayor head start. Finally when it comes to the regime cracking down on people, the risk-reward calculation of police and soldiers can quickly change from shooting at the crowd to joining the crowd, if the crowd is armed.
In the end after each regime falls, the lessons is “if we had banded together earlier and fought them right away, a lot of bloodshed and destruction could have been prevented.”
This is a double-edged sword. In other countries the government is really reluctant to have the military shoot protesters, because the protesters are civilians and, pretty much by definition, unarmed. If the police or military do shoot protesters, the undecided public is very likely to turn against the government for slaughtering innocent, unarmed civilians.
In the US, police are terrified of civilians, and are more than willing to shoot them. Civilians are fairly likely to be armed, so if the government claims that the civilians shot first, a lot of people will believe them.