Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] Also none of your type have the balls or bloody minded fanaticism it takes to endure the causalities the Viet Cong and the Taliban were. One bomb drop and you fuckers would be throwing in the towel. Because your all bark and no bite.

"Send snacks" wrote one online while occupying a federal nature preserve.

We got snacks. 5.56mm, 81mm, 120mm, 155mm.

"May I take your order?"

[Fireball]

[...] Also none of your type have the balls or bloody minded fanaticism it takes to endure the causalities the Viet Cong and the Taliban were. One bomb drop and you fuckers would be throwing in the towel. Because your all bark and no bite.

"Send snacks" wrote one online while occupying a federal nature preserve.

We got snacks. 5.56mm, 81mm, 120mm, 155mm.

"May I take your order?"

I remember those guys getting pissed because people were sending them dildoes.  "Here's your snack!" 

[Ravenshire]

It doesn't seem you've really thought.

Fixed that bit for ya, Thump.

[Dmitry1983]

Federal government is funded by American taxpayers. In case of insurrection it will lose its revenue and won't be able to do anything.

This ignores the fact that aside from the self-employed (a small minority of tax-payers), Federal taxes are collected by payroll deductions, meaning that unless said taxpayers quit their jobs, the Feds receive a constant influx of money, and military paychecks roll out on schedule.

Taxpayers usually don't work during revolutions.

It's soldiers not insurrectionists that need banks and ATMs which don't work when power lines are destroyed.

Unless you're destroying powerlines in DC, you're not eliminating the disbursement of military salaries, which are by law nowadays by direct deposit. As for the local ability of soldiers to get money from local ATMs, they don't need to in the field, as they're fed and supplied by the logistics of the military. They are also often paid a per-diem, in cash, for daily needs not supplied by the logistics train.

It would be one of the main targets

So you'll have to strike at the financial system itself in order to hamstring a military response. And that has pretty robust defenses built-in.

What defences? Financial sector can't work if there is no electricity.

They couldn't disrupt anything in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Apples and oranges. Your two examples feature nations of very different languages, ethnicities, and financial systems.

US military couldn't defeat backward countries despite full support of its huge economy. Rebellion would leave US economy in ruins.

You're also ignoring the fact that most Americans would not see the American military as an occupying force to be fought, but rather the legitimate arm of governmental force.

It's unlikely that the majority of Americans would support a tyrant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This ignores the fact that aside from the self-employed (a small minority of tax-payers), Federal taxes are collected by payroll deductions, meaning that unless said taxpayers quit their jobs, the Feds receive a constant influx of money, and military paychecks roll out on schedule.

Taxpayers usually don't work during revolutions.

Unless you're destroying powerlines in DC, you're not eliminating the disbursement of military salaries, which are by law nowadays by direct deposit. As for the local ability of soldiers to get money from local ATMs, they don't need to in the field, as they're fed and supplied by the logistics of the military. They are also often paid a per-diem, in cash, for daily needs not supplied by the logistics train.

It would be one of the main targets

So you'll have to strike at the financial system itself in order to hamstring a military response. And that has pretty robust defenses built-in.

What defences? Financial sector can't work if there is no electricity.

Apples and oranges. Your two examples feature nations of very different languages, ethnicities, and financial systems.

US military couldn't defeat backward countries despite full support of its huge economy. Rebellion would leave US economy in ruins.

You're also ignoring the fact that most Americans would not see the American military as an occupying force to be fought, but rather the legitimate arm of governmental force.

It's unlikely that the majority of Americans would support a tyrant.

(Bold mine)

Then why do they keep getting elected?

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Taxpayers usually don't work during revolutions.

Then they are even more screwed than the government 

It would be one of the main targets

And that wouldn't make a lick of difference

What defences? Financial sector can't work if there is no electricity.

 Do you think they don't have backups ? 

US military couldn't defeat backward countries despite full support of its huge economy. Rebellion would leave US economy in ruins.

Again you don't get the difference between a foreign occupation and an intersection on home soil 

It's unlikely that the majority of Americans would support a tyrant.

One man's tyrant is another man's hero. The question is which they will see.


An insurrection on US soil will fail. It's simple as that.

[Peebothuhlu]

It's unlikely that the majority of Americans would support a tyrant.
One man's tyrant is another man's hero. The question is which they will see.


An insurrection on US soil will fail. It's simple as that.

Speaking as a stinky foreign devil, I'm intrigued if the Yanks can go two for two.

The Russians didn't; just saying...

[Mister Agenda]

A common characteristic of countries that have actual revolutions is a large proportion of unemployed youth. The USA has low unemployment and an average age of 38, close to middle age. We don't have the characteristics of a country ripe for revolution. We have the characteristics of a country ripe for domestic terrorism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Taxpayers usually don't work during revolutions.

People still go to work in almost all cases. There are times when the combat prevents that, but that generally only happens in cities and that's usually the end-game at that point.

It would be one of the main targets

That's nice. Now ponder for a moment what it would take to keep the entire financial network of this country down for a period long enough to impact the logistics of military operations, and what you think that might require in terms of manpower.

What defences? Financial sector can't work if there is no electricity.

I hate to break the news to you, but taking away the ability of people to heat or cool their homes, cook their foods, and watch their TVs is not going to win your insurgency any friends amongst the civilian population. Presumably you know that civilian support is vital.

US military couldn't defeat backward countries despite full support of its huge economy. Rebellion would leave US economy in ruins.

You neglected to answer my point, instead just making another baseless claim. I've lived through a revolution. The economy doesn't grind to a halt because people are shooting.

It's unlikely that the majority of Americans would support a tyrant.

How stupid a person has to be to believe this after watching Trump's assault on democracy -- and the support he has as a result of that assault on democracy -- is pretty fuckin' stupid. A significant number of Americans would prefer an autocracy.

Anyway, your John Rambos in their surplus BDUs toting single-shot rifles have no answer for tanks, helicopters, or artillery.

If they're stupid enough to start their little, what's their cute name for it, oh yeah, "boogaloo", that will allow us to identify them and either imprison or kill them.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are a whole bunch of camps out in the desert that aren't nearly overcrowded enough, I hear. It'll be great for the private prison and detention industries. Civilian contractors. Services.