Dark Knight Rises

[kentonio]

Easiest way to crush a rebellion is to pick a city no one likes (for example, Dallas) and nuke it.

I challenge you to tell us you weren't smiling when you thought of that.

[regexcellent]

Yes, they actually would, especially since they're not overwhelmingly fat, often have more shooting experience than your average non-infantry soldier (especially against live targets i.e. game), and there are so many guns in this country it would be impossible to even put a dent in the number of people who have them. The number of casualties citizens could inflict on the military if they organized is staggering. Jet fighters can't patrol streets, nor can warships.

[kentonio]

Yes, they actually would, especially since they're not overwhelmingly fat, often have more shooting experience than your average non-infantry soldier (especially against live targets i.e. game), and there are so many guns in this country it would be impossible to even put a dent in the number of people who have them. The number of casualties citizens could inflict on the military if they organized is staggering. Jet fighters can't patrol streets, nor can warships.

How exactly would they organize pray tell?

[regexcellent]

I find that Guerilla warfare is not at all effective when you just nuke cities or gas them.

Easiest way to crush a rebellion is to pick a city no one likes (for example, Dallas) and nuke it. Tell other cities they're next unless they fall in line.

Then all of the fat rednecks with handguns don't matter all that much.

That only works if the problem areas are concentrated and not predominantly rural. Also, it's not working in Syria.

[Asher]

That only works if the problem areas are concentrated and not predominantly rural. Also, it's not working in Syria.

Sorry - Syria tried nuking a city?

[Al B. Sure!]

Sorry - Syria tried nuking a city?

They have chemical weapons that they're not using yet.


And I think mass destruction like that would only galvanize the rebels and push the fence-sitters to revolution.

[Asher]

Just like it did with Hiroshima?

[Al B. Sure!]

Just like it did with Hiroshima?

Mass slaughterings in history have only galvanized rebels and insurgents.


And the Japanese did not surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They surrendered because of the annihilation of the army in Manchuria by the Soviet entry into the war.

[Asher]

Mmhmm.

You're right, though. Dallas wouldn't be enough. We'd also need to hit Philly.

[regexcellent]

American gun ownership, especially in concert with state militias like the National Guard, has the potential to make the country fundamentally ungovernable no matter how many people the government decides to kill.

[kentonio]

Mass slaughterings in history have only galvanized rebels and insurgents.

Not particularly true, there have been many examples of both outcomes.

And the Japanese did not surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They surrendered because of the annihilation of the army in Manchuria by the Soviet entry into the war.

Utterly untrue.

[Asher]

American gun ownership, especially in concert with state militias like the National Guard, has the potential to make the country fundamentally ungovernable no matter how many people the government decides to kill.

You're dreaming.

In any case, America is largely ungovernable now. At some people people need to realize the experiment failed -- America is no longer a leader in anything worth striving for. It's an example of squandered opportunity.

[Al B. Sure!]

Utterly untrue.

Hiroshima was bombed and the Japanese did not surrender. Nagasaki gets bombed and you think that causes a surrender six days away? Or was it the invasion by the Soviet Union the day of the Nagasaki bombing and the annihilation of the Kwantung (over 600,000 Japanese soldiers captured) in battles over the next week that caused Japan's surrendering on August 15th?

If the nukes did it, Japan would have surrendered immediately. No. They surrendered only after they were wiped out by the Soviets in Manchuria.

[kentonio]

Hiroshima was bombed and the Japanese did not surrender. Nagasaki gets bombed and you think that causes a surrender six days away? Or was it the invasion by the Soviet Union the day of the Nagasaki bombing and the annihilation of the Kwantung (over 600,000 Japanese soldiers captured) in battles over the next week that caused Japan's surrendering on August 15th?

If the nukes did it, Japan would have surrendered immediately. No. They surrendered only after they were wiped out by the Soviets in Manchuria.

Try reading about the conversations and political manouvering in IJ at the time, rather than making your own assumptions.

[Jon Miller]

You're dreaming.

In any case, America is largely ungovernable now. At some people people need to realize the experiment failed -- America is no longer a leader in anything worth striving for. It's an example of squandered opportunity.

If America didn't want to be governed, it would be ungovernable. I agree.

This is generally true. To force government you have to follow North Korea's or Stalin's path...

JMM