← Back to context

Comment by vintermann

12 hours ago

Is armed with knives enough?

Presumably it isn't, and you'd need a certain minimum level of technological parity with your tyrants.

Presumably that also isn't fixed. So even if rifles might have been sufficient in the early US even though the government had cannons, rifles may not be sufficient when the government has chemical weapons and armored cars.

So where's the industrial base which makes the weapons? Or the money to buy the weapons? For Iraq, Afghanistan, and for that matter in lots of conflicts the US weren't involved in (or were involved in on the anti-government side!) the answer seems straightforward enough: in foreign countries which also don't like your government. Without a bunch of neighbors and rival powers which really didn't want the US in Iraq/Afghanistan, could the insurgents have done much?

Who do you propose should arm the resistance in the US, if government supported "police" paramilitaries run amok? (Let's for the sake of argument not get into whether that has happened yet). It's going to have to be quite an impressive level of support, too, to stand up against systems developed precisely against that sort of eventuality and battle-tested in the US' sphere of influence.

9 comments

vintermann

Reply
AnthonyMouse  11 hours ago

> Is armed with knives enough?

It depends on the numbers. Do they have 100,000 guys with guns but you have a hundred million with knives? Then you have a chance. But your chances improve a lot if your side is starting off with something more effective than that.

> Presumably it isn't, and you'd need a certain minimum level of technological parity with your tyrants.

You don't need parity, you need a foothold to leverage into more.

> So where's the industrial base which makes the weapons? Or the money to buy the weapons?

In a civil war, you take the domestic facilities and equipment by force and then use them. But first you need the capacity to do that. Can 10,000 guys with knives take a military base guarded by a thousand guys with guns? Probably not. Can they if they all have guns? Yeah, probably.

Then the government has to decide if they're going to vaporize the facility when you do that. If they don't, you get nukes. If they do, now you have a mechanism to make them blow up their own infrastructure by feigning attacks. And so on.

  • vintermann  11 hours ago

    > Can they if they all have guns? Yeah, probably.

    Heck no, they can't. Even if they could, the government's advantage isn't just in weapons. Long before you'd get your 10000 people with their gun safe stash together, they'd know exactly who you were and what you were planning.

    I think your proposal reads like bad power fantasy fiction. You can resist a powerful authoritarian/occupying government with force, but not without a lot of foreign backing - like in Iran right now - and I don't think you are prepared to ask the Russians for help. It would of course open a huge can of worms if you did, and you'd be right to ask if the world where you win with such support will even be better than the world where you lose.

    • AnthonyMouse  11 hours ago

      > Heck no, they can't.

      Well that settles it then.

      > Long before you'd get your 10000 people with their gun safe stash together, they'd know exactly who you were and what you were planning.

      It's almost like anonymity and private communications tech belongs next to weapons on the list of things needed to resist authoritarianism.

      > not without a lot of foreign backing

      Why does it require any foreign backing whatsoever? You're not going to do it if you're three people, but a civil war is when some double digit percentage of the country is on the other side. You don't think that's enough people to supply substantial domestic resources?

      2 replies →

0xDEAFBEAD  11 hours ago

Knives are basically obsolete technology in military terms. Firearms are not obsolete; that's why almost every soldier (or "paramilitary") carries one. Your technological parity point is technically correct, but it doesn't really apply here.

There are more privately owned guns than people in the US. We are already profusely armed.