Will revolution be impossible in the future?

>>31588191
Modern armies have time and time again been unable to effectively fight guerilla warfare. You do it as you do now, hit and run and build up public support until the government has to nuke over half the population or give in to its demands. Also, it's not as if most soldiers would be willing to kill their own people, and occupation would still be required to maintain order.

>>31588191
The success of a revolution is not a technological struggle, but rather an ideological one.

If people sympathize with the rebels, they win.
If they don't, they lose.

It's a publicity thing more than a military one.

"Rebel terrorists managed to exploit a design weakness and destroy the Death Star, killing hundreds of thousands of galactic citizens. Lord Vader's whereabouts remain unknown, but it is hoped that he has escaped unharmed."

>implying technology will stop anything.

Unless they start giving out drugs ala equilibrium, a population with the motivation will rebel. whether it succeeds or not depends on the people, but whether it happens is another thing entirely

>>31588191

Things a human soldier needs
>food
>water
>bullets
>some sleep

Things robotroops need
>lubricant
>oil
>fuel/batteries
>bullets
>spare parts
>mechanical support
>datalink

How human troops are made
>give gun
>push in direction of enemy

How robotroops are made
>mine material
>refine material
>ship material to factory
>produce parts
>assemble parts
>program bots
>deploy bots to field

If anything in the logistics lines are neutralized, the bots collapse. Bomb a truck of batteries? an entire battalion is gone. destroy a datalink station? coordination is gone. Factory is overtaken/sabotaged? no more troops being deployed. Bomb the barracks the mechanics sleep in? bots break down in the field.

I can scavenge canned food from houses, I can hunt, I can filter water. Robots cannot replace their battery packs with scavenged 9 volts or AAs, robots cannot take motor oil from a car and use it.

Robots are the most terrible troops to possibly use against entrenched guerrilla fighters, there are simply too many links in the logistics chain to fight a winning war against guerrillas.

>>31588602

Have you seen the game We Happy Few? It's pretty neat looking, it's in Early Access so I'm not going to buy it, but it looks neat.

>>31588191
It becomes increasingly likely. Especially if we (as a species) continue to rely on robotic/drone type weaponry.

Once we weaken the human element in law enforcement/warfare we (as a species) risk losing what little morals we (as a species) have in these departments (and humans have been involved in some of the most statist and unfreedomlike moves in history (I realize how dumb pointing that out is)). So just imagine if the control of the military is in the hands of a couple hundred or thousand hand picked individuals

>>31588191
I'm fed up with these "revolutions don't work because the military is too powerful" threads that go to extreme lengths to construe some far fetched scenario in which a rebellion would fail. the reality is, we are living such a scenario and you don't have to dream anything up. we are living in a tyrannical dystopia in which the ruling elites are breaking their own laws egregiously day in day out (the very existence of the ATF is illegal!) and they don't need drones, super soldiers, AIs and robots to keep us under their heel. All they need is a few cops, a few shills in media and a few professors in the right "institutions of higher learning".

>>31588631
you're retarded m8

>>31589230
Not an argument.

File: 1475452172771.gif (1MB, 610x343px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 610x343px

>>31589230
speaking to yourself will not change the outcome.

In all honesty - probably not. Kazcynski was right, industrial-technological society deprives us of liberty.

File: you could have stopped this.gif (2MB, 534x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 534x300px

>>31588191

Revolution is already impossible you stupid useless cunt!

We lost the moment we lost automatics and everything became about aspiring to emulate black people, watch the Kardashians, and having access to Facebook and Snapchat.

Motivation to fight back was killed off decades ago.

FUCK

File: morpheus - inured.jpg (150KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 720x405px

>>31588191
Humans excel at operating outside of the box. Unpredictability. Creativity. Adaptability. AI may be self-learning, but it still needs a program to run.

We created AI. We can find or create its Achilles Heel. Just have to stay outside of the AI box long enough to figure it out. Problem is, most humans don't want to give up what it offers. They will be the real enemy.

>>31592437
If they are high-tech, go low.
Concertina and mud, logs and boulders.

These threads are stupid. I literally just argued over this same thing in a facebook group.

Just like a man, bullets will still stop a robot. A .308 to the knee or other vital area is still the same, metal or flesh.
A homemade IED will scramble circuits and steel just as easily as flesh and bone.

Men will always be necessary to oppress. Even if they're just in a logistics role. Men can be shot.

Tanks, jets, missiles and bombs cannot issue orders, they cannot stand on the street corner and enforce curfew, they cannot line people up and shoot them.
You need soldiers. Soldiers can be shot, they can be ambushed, they can be picked off from 500m.

That's ignoring the entire fact that there is literally zero chance that soldiers will fire on their own brothers, their own countryman.

Tl;dr
Get fucked commie.