/k/iddos definitively btfo

The only people currently considering rebellion are shitter shoahed marxists who spent years decrying the Second Amendment until they suddenly realized they might need it. They also live in easily isolated areas with little to no agricultural capacity so we could just bomb out the roads and airports and starve them all out.

>>34535772
The US is rich and comfy. Anyone who isn't utter shit is comfy unless they are crippled, insane or both.

There is nothing to fight over. There are no precursor activities to violent revolt happening. None. Nada. Worry about shit which is LIKELY to happen. Oh, wait, that's boring. You want a dream where your imagined skills will place you in a better position than your sustained trajectory of fail.

Too bad, so sad, go to Syria or somewhere if you crave action.

>>34535854
pretty much this.

besides the usual shitty things like shitty drivers and traffic stops things are pretty comfy

>>34535772
Oaths are to america, not the government.

>Is a MIL/LEO-backed rebellion impossible in the modern age?

Rebellion of any kind is impossible in the modern age.

FTFY

>>34535772
>Well, /k/, is /pol/ right?
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

light yourself on fire immediately you fucking cancerous hump

>>34536492

Prove it.

File: 1492051808589.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>34535772

File: 1488359620225.png (530KB, 668x504px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 668x504px

>>34535854
>There are no precursor activities to violent revolt happening.

Like what? Legit question. I've never really thought the build up before. Do you have any links worth reading that go down that particular rabbit hole?

File: the defense for an uprising.png (555KB, 1315x890px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1315x890px

>>34535772

File: Star_of_Chaos.jpg (40KB, 610x645px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 610x645px

Wait, do we not want that?
MORE SACRIFICES
MORE DEATH
MORE GLORIOUS CARNAGE

>>34535772
>>34535772
that is a crock of shiet. You don't seem to find it anymore anywhere, but Obummer asked pretty much every .mil base commander in the US if they would fire on citizentry if given the order, and over two-thirds said "fuck no, no matter what the circumstance was."

its pretty much like the sequester, you just cant really find shit about it with a google search anymore.... and they want to say net neutrality is fuckin debatable still.

File: Berserk_di_khorne.jpg (97KB, 960x567px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 960x567px

>>34536601
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-gSJW3sHXE

>>34536530

>Claims to be a former fed that plotted how to put down civilian uprsings

>Oh and by the way they monitor /k/ threads

>Admits to this
>In the threads his employers allegedly monitor.

Yeah this is fake and gay in the most homosexual form possible.

>>34535772
No. Whoever wrote that is a moron.

t. /pol/

I'm going back to shiptost about communists and niggers.

These sorts of scenarios are always based on the idea that the US or some other government would be willing to drop bombs in civilian neighborhoods and would run through suburbs with tanks and thousands of troops.

This is the stupidest fucking way to go about it and would only hasten a government downfall. Chances are it would be more like the Troubles where you use soldiers like cops and cops like soldiers. People don't care if you drop JDAMs on 3rd world shitholes half a world away, but they absolutely do care if you do it in their backyard.

They also completely disregard that current policing practices are allowed to be as god-awful as they are because there's about a billion different LEO agencies with different doctrines, funding, recruitment standards, and internal disciplinary practices. Once the public consciousness labels anybody who wears a LEO/Military uniform an enemy of the American people, the entire dynamic changes.

>>34535772
order followers are the enemy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y9FpBAVuIc

How many years have we been in Iraq and Afghanistan now?

>>34536685
Fake or not it still raises valid points, namely logistics and foriegn intervention. Urban centers could quickly deteriorate into starving, disease-filled shitholes.

>>34536938
Exactly. Counter-Insurgency doesn't exactly have many examples of success.

>>34536885
So this is what my Gommie coworker was talking about when he said medical triage is unfair and the training is taught in such a way that the practitioner can claim they were just following orders.

>>34537075
>Counter-Insurgency doesn't exactly have many examples of success.
as long as the insurgents have outside support

>>34536528
Read some history. Between the late 1700s and mid 1800s, the world rapidly changed, from the old setup of monarchies who still traced their lineage from the kings of the middle ages, to the beginnings of the modern system of popular rule and Parliaments. It all happened in a series of successful revolutions, in which colonies revolted and won independence, and angry, starving civilians overwhelmed their old governments.

Of course, the technical stuff about how the revolution was fought militarily is now mostly irrelevant, but all the social factors that make a bunch of pissed off people want to revolt are consistent with modern human behavior. You can see some consistent patterns.

See, people on the whole are selfish--that's not a bad thing, just a statement of fact. People don't revolt because the government doesn't match their ideals. They revolt because their life sucks for some reason--usually because they're feeling the need for resources that the government keeps taking away. Sometimes it's money through punitive taxes on a colony--like most of the revolutions in the Americas--but more often than not it's related to food or other life essentials. Look up the French Revolution's background--the different swells in violence all came around the times when the harvests had been bad or all the food was going to the army, and people were fucking hungry. People revolt because their life blows and they don't have much to lose, and rightly or wrongly they think it's the government's fault.

We don't have that here. No one starves to death in America. The poorest kids still grow up with an Xbox. Even the people with the suckiest lives here (not counting people with crippling mental illness or drug addiction, which are most of the homeless) still have a lot to lose. They usually have a roof over their heads and know where their next meal is coming from. In most places, anyone who wants a job can get one. (fucking character limit. cont)

>>34536625
>actually believing an internet tall tale

>>34537479
(cont) So on the whole, life is pretty good for everyone here. Some student loan debt or gun control or high taxes or whatever are going to spark angry rants on Facebook, but they won't drive people to take up a gun and march on Washington. At least, not in the numbers that would constitute a revolt. I think history backs me up on that. Revolts don't happen for ideals, because people are too stupid for that. They happen because people are pissed off and their life really sucks, which isn't anywhere close to the case here, and absent a global SHTF catastrophe it's never going to be.

So for the question of what side the soldiers and LEOs would take, I think the answer is they'd side with their families and background at home. If you assume that for a revolution to happen, life has to be shit for a big group of people, then it follows that the answer would depend on which group of people revolted. If cities turned into starving hell holes for some reason and the urban poor revolted, France or Bolshevik-style, then I think most soldiers (who are disproportionately rural) would side with the government. But if for some reason it was the Bubbas in the country that revolted--I can't think what would cause it, probably some tyrannical government crackdown--then I bet most of the soldiers would defect. America tends to be split along city/country lines, and I think most of the MIL/LEOs would tend to support whatever side the country demographic was on. Not just because they're from rural areas--cause a bunch of soldiers are city fags too--but also because the country side tends to be more pro-self-sufficiency, firearm ownership, and Constitutionalism which is an attitude soldiers tend to have as well. It's hard to picture most soldiers supporting an urban revolution--those are almost invariably very left-wing.

Well, there. I didn't mean to post a novel but that's why I think anyone who worries about a revolt is a moron.

>>34536625
>that is a crock of shiet. You don't seem to find it anymore anywhere, but Obummer asked pretty much every .mil base commander in the US if they would fire on citizentry if given the order, and over two-thirds said "fuck no, no matter what the circumstance was."
When was this?

>>34537691
>the urban poor revolted, France or Bolshevik-style, then I think most soldiers (who are disproportionately rural) would side with the government
I would still consider it probably unlikely. Many of the troops in Petrograd during the March (April) Russian revolution were Cossacks, notable for their different backgrounds compared to the urban industrial poor, and they did nothing to support the regime.

For most revolution-like events, the troops are usually unwilling to fire into crowds of women and children to support the regime even if they have little to no local connections.

If it gets so fucked up that soldiers wives/gfs/mothers are taking part in the revolt the reliability of the military is already seriously compromised.

>>34537479
>>34537691
This is all 100% right...for now.

In the late 2030s, automation will have killed millions of jobs. Racial tensions will be harder and harder to wave away, as the non-white population grows. Our country will be in an incredibly unstable transition; large parts of the population will be unemployable, and the government will be clueless as to a solution.

"Race war now" is just a joke, but a few decades from now, real unrest, instability, and maybe even open conflict will be possible.

>>34537334
Outside support has never been a requirement for a successful insurgency.

If the goal is separatism, like in a colonial war, all you need to do is make the war costly enough, and eventually the government will cave.

If the goal is revolution, then you've got options (none of them easy). Either you 1) kill off/drive away all civilian government supporters, 2) destroy/convert the military, or 3) simply shut down all civil government until all semblance of control collapses.

Three universal truths:
1) No nation lasts forever
2) No army is invincible
3) Power resides where people think it resides

Governments have been overthrown before even with the military actively shooting their own citizens and those citizens being armed with nothing but flyers and flags. What happened? Well, the military got tired of killing their own citizens and turned on the government. See ex-Soviet commie shitholes for examples.

>>34536022
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

>>34537823
Well, I don't know any Cossacks, so I can't comment, but the American soldiers/vets I've met I have a really tough time picturing siding with pansy urban liberals who are rioting because they want the government to give them shit.

>if it gets so fucked up that soldiers' wives/gfs/mothers will take part

The women tend to riot when shit gets really bad and people are hungry. Look up the Womens' March on Versailles. Historically, the female faction gives even less of a shit about ideals and political theory than the men, but they will go apeshit if their family is hungry, and fight for whoever says they'll give them food.

I don't know what that implies for an actual American revolt, I'm just saying that's what'll happen.

>>34537874
I'm cautiously optimistic about how the government will handle the automation revolution. I don't think they'll use a solution I agree with from a political standpoint, but I don't think they'll be letting people starve either. Remember, the companies implementing the automation still need to have customers, and more often than not it's their lobbyists who write the laws.

For better or for worse, I think they'll implement a UBI, at least in the short term to handle the crisis of oh shit no one can get a job and make a living. I don't agree with it politically, but it's better than starvation, and I think I'll even enjoy the opportunities that will come up to be a happy NEET with a shit ton of free time.

I don't like it when people on the right wing are scared of automation because it will take jobs. The idea that we won't have to work for a massive chunk of our lifetime just to make ends meet is fundamentally good. I resent losing all of that irreplaceable lifetime to tedious work, and I'd love to spend more of my life pursuing my interests and hobbies. The tricky part is to do it in a way that still leaves room for individual property rights, but that's a challenge I think can be solved.

>>34537984
>Degree in biology
>Degree in computer science
>Finishing MBA for Christmas
I can do healthcare management, IT management, have industrial management experience, retail management experience, and I'm an ASE certified mechanic. I built my entire resume based in shit that is never going away. Sadly, most people don't think that far ahead.

>>34537984
>Historically, the female faction gives even less of a shit about ideals and political theory than the men, but they will go apeshit if their family is hungry, and fight for whoever says they'll give them food.

This is less true now and probably won't be true at all in the near future

>>34537984
>the automation revolution
"automation" is not going to happen, it's a meaningless buzzword used by communists to ensnare you in their "but it's not communism, it's socialism" trap.

cars will not be automated to any meaningful extent any time soon (the most you'll see is advanced lane guidance, it's all just being marketed as "self driving" to sell cars), trucks will not be automated to any meaningful extent (black ice, deer, change of environment, etc), and AI is not going to change [insert arbitrary industry here].

uber is running on a shitty business model and "uberification" is just part 2 of the dotcom boom. uber loses 2 billion dollars a year, and they only function because of large investments. the "sharing economy" is absolutely useless and will never function.

UBI will never work for two reasons: arbitrarily handing out cash devalues said cash, and an economy is still needed even if you have a lot of industrialization going.