NationStates Jolt Archive

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?

DK

'nuff said

The 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment.

Some words on a bit of paper somewhere could stop an army?

Good luck with that.

DK

'nuff said


DK?

Some words on a bit of paper somewhere could stop an army?

Good luck with that.

no but a large contingent of cheesed off libertarians could

The answer you will get from the gun nuts is the second amendment.

They seem to hold an inconsistent belief that a rag tag bunch of US civilians could prevent a military that these same people believe to be the best in the world, from taking power.

I wish they would make their minds up. Either the US military is so incompetent that a bunch of untrained irregulars could defeat it, or it is the leading military force in the world. It cannot be both.

Some words on a bit of paper somewhere could stop an army?

Good luck with that.

*sigh*

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Which means if the militatry tries to take over they'll be up against people who have armed themselves for various purpose.

*sigh*



Which means if the militatry tries to take over they'll be up against people who have armed themselves for various purpose.


Hmm....the world's strongest military, very organised, massively equipped vs. a bunch of civilians, poorly organised, and poorly equipped.

I wonder....

Hmm....the world's strongest military, very organised, massively equipped vs. a bunch of civilians, poorly organised, and poorly equipped.

I wonder....

Who says we can't organize ourselves, and have you seen the legals guns that we can buy??

Because it's an army of volunteers, all of whom come from the same people they'd be trying to rule. Plus there's the thing about ideals and all that, which means that not everybody in the armed forces would follow such a coup.

Because in order for a commander to set up a successful military coup of the United States they must command the loyalty of the soldiers to him and not the Constitution, which the United States Armed Forces are sworn to defend. Also the upper leadership of the Pentagon have their own form of check and balances that would make it even more difficult for a single member to make such a move.

Who says we can't organize ourselves, and have you seen the legals guns that we can buy??
Have you seen the tanks and helicopters that the military owns?

Have you seen the tanks and helicopters that the military owns?

Two words: Gurilla Warfare.

Two words: Gurilla Warfare.

Actually three words: Illiterate Gurilla Warfare. :p

Gorilla warfare:
http://www.sillyjokes.co.uk/images/dress-up/masks/rubber-animal/gorilla.jpg
____Throw poo!!!

Some of the previous posters are right

Not all of the military would go along with it. In fact, the vast majoprity of the National Guard, Navy (this will include the Marine's till they get out from under the navy and get their own Academy), Airforce, Army, and Coast Guard would be opposed to it.

so, when you include vast numbers of people armed with whatever they can get and have excellent knowledge of the areathey are fighting in, you would get one badass force of fighters.

I even have an idea for a book based off this, where Iran winds up taking over the Middle East and then slowly the rest of the world, driving the Army and Police underground with the vast majority of the United States.

I doubt the U.S military could win the hearts and minds of the American people (they have enough trouble doing that on peacekeeping operations) also the world and American troops would not stand for this!

Though if the leader is charismatic enough a democratic U.S could die overnight as is how politics works

I even have an idea for a book based off this, where Iran winds up taking over the Middle East and then slowly the rest of the world, driving the Army and Police underground with the vast majority of the United States.
Sounds like a crap read. It'd probably do quite well as a point-of-purchase item at Wal-Mart.

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?

The military is not the only one with guns. :D

The answer you will get from the gun nuts is the second amendment.

They seem to hold an inconsistent belief that a rag tag bunch of US civilians could prevent a military that these same people believe to be the best in the world, from taking power.

Well....if a rag tag bunch of irregulars can keep the US forces at bay in Iraq despite having helicopters and tanks, then why can't the US citizens do the samething?

It's too small to effectively garrison the entire country (Iraq 26 million=teh hard; US=300,000,000= teh impossible). Tho' it could smash it flat and kill almost everyone if it wanted I suppose.

That said, I expect if it promised to leave most things intact and co-opted local and state police, the country would roll over and allow it.

as if US soldiers would follow an order like that

well maybe if a green party member made it into the white house....

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?

a) Military Generals have no training in running a country. They wouldn't know what to do with the country once they conquered it. The US is too complicated a nation to be run by a handful of military generals. It might work in any given state, but not all 50 of them.

b) State troopers, police SWAT teams, and other para-military organizations could offer significant resistance.

c) What would they get out of it? As it is, when they get tired of running the military, they get to retire to lucrative jobs in the private and political sectors that are much more appealing than running a nascent military dictatorship.

d) Military dictatorships arise when there is already an effort to overthrow a government that is barely holding on. That's why when Pakistan became a military dictatorship no one batted an eye. They hated their government, and didn't think that a military dictator could possibly be any worse.

e) Having this guy in the White House is about as close as they probably hope to get.

e) Having this guy in the White House is about as close as they probably hope to get.

Lincoln died 141 years ago.

The military isn't doing too well with a bunch of Rag Tag Iraqis.(Sorry bad counterpoint)

And I doubt the entire military would unify on this, I think the National Guard will stand by and guard their states of origin. So it may be Military against
National Guard\Police\Civilians.

I suppose, but the US is really too large to stage a coup effectively. you culd take over the federal govt, but then the country might devolve into 50 separate republics. you cant deploy the entire army throughout the country and expect order to be held.

I suppose, but the US is really too large to stage a coup effectively. you culd take over the federal govt, but then the country might devolve into 50 separate republics. you cant deploy the entire army throughout the country and expect order to be held.

Depends if the entire military is in on it. If they are, then it is entirely possible.

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?

It wouldn't work.

My army is bigger than my other army.

I suppose, but the US is really too large to stage a coup effectively. you culd take over the federal govt, but then the country might devolve into 50 separate republics. you cant deploy the entire army throughout the country and expect order to be held.

I think that would be the most likely thing. I think the states would tell Uncle Sam to stuff it. There is no way that the active Army (however much would be loyal to this junta) could take on all 50 National Guards.

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?

Actually, that is a good question - political scientists have written a heck of a lot about why the military takes over the government in third world nations, but they have mostly ignored the more interesting question, which is - why does the military in the first world nations such as the US not take over?
The answer is difficult to come up with, but is basically a combination of cultural factors, respect for the democratic process and, probably most importantly, that the average soldiers are well enough educated that they would most likely not all just follow their generals against the elected government.
That, at least, is what the only stuff I've read on that issue has said.

I think that would be the most likely thing. I think the states would tell Uncle Sam to stuff it. There is no way that the active Army (however much would be loyal to this junta) could take on all 50 National Guards.

Unless Marshal Law is declared.

I think that would be the most likely thing. I think the states would tell Uncle Sam to stuff it. There is no way that the active Army (however much would be loyal to this junta) could take on all 50 National Guards.

They could, just not all at once..If I remember correctly there 250,000 NG members, and 750,000 Regular army?

It wouldn't work.

My army is bigger than my other army.

Now can you rephrase this in understandable english?

They could, just not all at once..If I remember correctly there 250,000 NG members, and 750,000 Regular army?

Which is not including the Air Force, Marines, and Naval personnel.

Unless Marshal Law is declared.

I think if Uncle Sam declared martial law under the sort of circumstances we're discussing here most of the National Guardsmen (and a similar percentage of the active military) would remember their oaths of enlistment and not go along with it.

They could, just not all at once..If I remember correctly there 250,000 NG members, and 750,000 Regular army?

According to globalsecurity.org

Active Army 512,400
Army Guard 350,000
Army Reserve 205,000

Active (Ch)Air Force 359,300
Air Guard 106,800
Air Force Reserve 76,100

USMC Active 178,000
USCMC Reserve 39,600

So that makes 935,000 total Federal forces (not including the Navy) and 456,800 state forces. However, it would be fair to assume that if it were a situation where the US's motives are more than questionable a sizeable number of both sides would remember their oaths of enlistment and not comply with orders that would subvert the Constitution. Also, remember that state forces swear oaths to their state Constitutions and to obey their Governors, in addition to the normal Federal oath. Presumably these troops would side with whomever would be more in keeping with these oaths.

Also, I would assume that a number of citizens would go against a military coup, as laughable an idea as it is. I know that if Uncle Sam went completely insane and attempted such a thing I'd be at the nearst Guard armory, SKS in hand.

Unless Marshal Law is declared.

I prefer martian law.

I prefer martian law.

Can I be Sir Phobos?

Can I be Sir Phobos?

Arise Sir Phobos, knight of mars, beater of ass.

I'll have some of what you're smoking.

*puffs*

Which is not including the Air Force, Marines, and Naval personnel.

Wollonochia set me straight.


Now can you rephrase this in understandable english?


The Army I pay for with my Tax dollars wouldn't fight against my 'other' army-Citizen's militia.

The Army I pay for with my Tax dollars wouldn't fight against my 'other' army-Citizen's militia.

Would you like to place a bet on that? If the Regular Army is being shot at by a Citizen's militia, the Regular Army is most definitely going to shoot back.

Would you like to place a bet on that? If the Regular Army is being shot at by a Citizen's militia, the Regular Army is most definitely going to shoot back.
No, a few would, but I think more than a few would break ranks and join the militia.

We could do whatever we wanted to in Cuba. The question is one of political will not militray strength .

Would you like to place a bet on that? If the Regular Army is being shot at by a Citizen's militia, the Regular Army is most definitely going to shoot back.
Ah, but a military coup would involve the Regular army shooting first.... and that is what some people are saying just wouldn't happen.

No, a few would, but I think more than a few would break ranks and join the militia.

And leave their friends to fend for themselves?

Ah, but a military coup would involve the Regular army shooting first.... and that is what some people are saying just wouldn't happen.

A true statement but a coup could be done without bloodshed!

No doubt the people will rise up against Castro's homosexual brother once Castro dies. He seems to be an unpopular figure in Cuba and abroad.

No doubt the people will rise up against Castro's homosexual brother once Castro dies. He seems to be an unpopular figure in Cuba and abroad.

1) Proof that Castro's brother is a homosexual

2) What makes you think that they would rise up?

And leave their friends to fend for themselves?
Well, you can't hardly kill the very people you're supposed to protect, now can you? Human beings don't have difficulty seeing a bigger picture than some would seem to want us to think.

1) Proof that Castro's brother is a homosexual

2) What makes you think that they would rise up?

1) look it up, it is not very relavent though
2) they have been brutally oppressed for years, their economy is in shambles, and they have a great democracy for a neighbor.

Hmm....the world's strongest military, very organised, massively equipped vs. a bunch of civilians, poorly organised, and poorly equipped.

I wonder....
Emphasis Added

Exactly. Why else do you think that we should be allowed to own AK-47s, M16s, BARs, et cetera? We want to be well-equipped in case the military takes over!

Well, you can't hardly kill the very people you're supposed to protect, now can you? Human beings don't have difficulty seeing a bigger picture than some would seem to want us to think.

If you sit and think about it, do you think the soldiers would A) support their friends or b) support strangers who are shooting at his/her friends?

1) look it up, it is not very relavent though
2) they have been brutally oppressed for years, their economy is in shambles, and they have a great democracy for a neighbor.

1) You brought it up and now I am asking you for proof. Provide it please.

2) Does not mean that they will rise up when Castro kicks the bucket and his brother takes over.

Sounds like some people here actualy want Castro's horrible regime to stay in power. I really do think that the repression of political dissent, average income of $3500 per year, and isolation will break out into pro-freedom riots once these elderly communist despots can threaten them no more.

If you sit and think about it, do you think the soldiers would A) support their friends or b) support strangers who are shooting at his/her friends?
What makes you a) suppose the civilians are going to come into a situation guns-a-blazing, behaving apparently completely unlike the way you'd expect a group of civilians to act, guns or no, and b) suppose that a soldier's regard must be limited to the well-being of his immediate circle, first and foremost? As I said, human beings don't have difficulty seeing a bigger picture than some would seem to want us to think. Maybe even some of us here tonight, who can say.

What makes you a) suppose the civilians are going to come into a situation guns-a-blazing, behaving apparently completely unlike the way you'd expect a group of civilians to act, guns or no,

Because the human race is very stupid and does stupid things. You will always have the nuts to come in guns blazing regardless of consequences.

b) suppose that a soldier's regard must be limited to the well-being of his immediate circle, first and foremost?

Then that means he will defend his comrades against those shooting at them. Meaning, his friends in the army.

As I said, human beings don't have difficulty seeing a bigger picture than some would seem to want us to think. Maybe even some of us here tonight, who can say.

When you are under fire, it is difficult to look at the larger picture when the odds may be good that you are going to be dead in short order.

I can't wait until the Cuban people are liberated. Hopefully by themselves.

Because the human race is very stupid and does stupid things. You will always have the nuts to come in guns blazing regardless of consequences.
And this is the wall I always come up against, this first bit right here. I'm honestly frickin' fed up with people assuming the worst of their fellowmen. If we're so stupid, why do we have digital watches now instead of sundials? We're not half as dumb as the mindless, suicidal combat automatons you describe.
Then that means he will defend his comrades against those shooting at them. Meaning, his friends in the army.
Assuming it ever got that far, no, I honestly don't think they would revert to a tribal simian-pack mentality when the people they're sizing up are garden-variety Americans. They'd have to be uniformly psychotic to engage American civilians without any form of disaffection. No sale.
When you are under fire, it is difficult to look at the larger picture when the odds may be good that you are going to be dead in short order.
That's as may be, but again, this is predicated on both sides comporting themselves as nonhuman combatants in a video game.

And this is the wall I always come up against, this first bit right here. I'm honestly frickin' fed up with people assuming the worst of their fellowmen. If we're so stupid, why do we have digital watches now instead of sundials? We're not half as dumb as the mindless, suicidal combat automatons you describe.



Communism assumes the worst in people. The destruction of the free market is based on an assumption that people are naturaly cruel and incompitant.
Castro should be ashamed. 47 years after his "revolution" his people are living on an average of $9 per day.

Damn. I just typed a really long and well-thought out rant, er... post, about a soldier's loyalty to whoever pays the bills, and drew comparisons to the fall of Ancient Rome and on and on... and it canned on me! bah!

Basically, the question should be why do soldiers follow military commanders into military coups?

a) Life for the average citizen is relatively destitute
b) Military commanders provide a 'meal ticket' for the soldiers who support them

Those are the main reasons. Even a strong democratic history is no failsafe for such things. Just watch where the money goes. When most people have little to no money, and there are people on the top willing to spend it to gain power, that's when you have to worry.

Damn. I just typed a really long and well-thought out rant, er... post, about a soldier's loyalty to whoever pays the bills, and drew comparisons to the fall of Ancient Rome and on and on... and it canned on me! bah!

Basically, the question should be why do soldiers follow military commanders into military coups?

a) Life for the average citizen is relatively destitute
b) Military commanders provide a 'meal ticket' for the soldiers who support them

Those are the main reasons. Even a strong democratic history is no failsafe for such things. Just watch where the money goes. When most people have little to no money, and there are people on the top willing to spend it to gain power, that's when you have to worry.

And that is how Castro keeps his power. A poverty striken nation brainwashed into believing that it needs government handouts to survive.

I would prefer a '32 flathead Ford Coupe

Have had this discussion before with fellow military buddies. The discussion ended with alot believing that the US military would fragment into a loyalist camp vs a rebel(traitor) camp. I believe that the loyalist would far outweigh the rebel camp. Therefore with a combination of a loyalist military and loyalist civilians that they could overtake any rebel force that could be raised. I don't think it is feasible to think that a rebel force of any real size could be raised without someone snitching and the whole rebel movement collapsing. Really it is just a hypothetical situation that would not come to pass under the current government setup. I could see the military intervening to restore democracy if there were a power grab in Washington.

This link is about the failed 1933 coup plot in the US. Very few people have heard this history.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

Basically, the question should be why do soldiers follow military commanders into military coups?


Group dynamics?

Srsly, the millitary is pretty good at training people to follow orders. They've thousands of years of practice. Also habit, and fear of being isolated in the group.

I'm not disparaging servicemen, just saying how it is.

What stops the military of a powerful nation(such as the US) from overthrowing the government, and installing a military dicatorship? I mean if the Joint Chiefs wanted to, they could rule the nation with an Iron Fist, and nothing could be done about it. So why don't they do that? After all, people with power will use and abuse that power, right?
Dear God, we can't keep the lid on Iraq, and the US has far more people than Iraq does. Many of them just as insane. And about as well armed. Besides that, we have very little in the way of a standing army, and the National Guard is a bit too civilian to ally itself with a dictatorship. Of course, if Bush does gain direct control of the National Guard (as he's trying to do), he could potentially do something along these lines.

Have had this discussion before with fellow military buddies. The discussion ended with alot believing that the US military would fragment into a loyalist camp vs a rebel(traitor) camp. I believe that the loyalist would far outweigh the rebel camp. Therefore with a combination of a loyalist military and loyalist civilians that they could overtake any rebel force that could be raised. I don't think it is feasible to think that a rebel force of any real size could be raised without someone snitching and the whole rebel movement collapsing. Really it is just a hypothetical situation that would not come to pass under the current government setup. I could see the military intervening to restore democracy if there were a power grab in Washington.

This link is about the failed 1933 coup plot in the US. Very few people have heard this history.


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

I heard of it, but it really does not matter at all because there was no way to carry it out.

I heard of it, but it really does not matter at all because there was no way to carry it out.


Basically my point of posting it. The reality is that it is highly unlikely a real coup could take place in the USA.

Group dynamics?

Srsly, the millitary is pretty good at training people to follow orders. They've thousands of years of practice. Also habit, and fear of being isolated in the group.

I'm not disparaging servicemen, just saying how it is.

There's more to it than that. While it's true that following orders is ingrained in all servicemen, mutiny is not unheard of. If the average soldier has a family to think of, and life in his (or her) country is relatively stable and prosperous, the idea of marching on one's own country would be repugnant to most soldiers.

You have to watch where it has happened before. Most of the time, the soldiers end up with 'benefits' for siding with the general. The average citizens live in famine while the soldiers are well fed. It's very rare for a general to be so charismatic that his soldiers will follow him into civil war when things are good at home.

Basically my point of posting it. The reality is that it is highly unlikely a real coup could take place in the USA.

Thats because we have things like private property , $48,900 per year to protect and a legitimate stable government. Cuba lacks these two things.


At our two average incomes it would take a cuban nearly 14 years to make what an american makes.

There's more to it than that. While it's true that following orders is ingrained in all servicemen, mutiny is not unheard of. If the average soldier has a family to think of, and life in his (or her) country is relatively stable and prosperous, the idea of marching on one's own country would be repugnant to most soldiers.

You have to watch where it has happened before. Most of the time, the soldiers end up with 'benefits' for siding with the general. The average citizens live in famine while the soldiers are well fed. It's very rare for a general to be so charismatic that his soldiers will follow him into civil war when things are good at home.


Good point. Would have to say that if I were given those orders to overthrow the legitimate government I wouldn't follow them. I seriously believe it would be difficult to find very many that would.

Thats because we have things like private property , $48,900 per year to protect and a legitimate stable government. Cuba lacks these two things.


At our two average incomes it would take a cuban nearly 14 years to make what an american makes.

Think your another one in this thread that has hit the nail on the head.

There's more to it than that. While it's true that following orders is ingrained in all servicemen, mutiny is not unheard of. If the average soldier has a family to think of, and life in his (or her) country is relatively stable and prosperous, the idea of marching on one's own country would be repugnant to most soldiers.

Okay, granted. But for mutiny to be effective in this case you would need entire companies at least - including officer corps - to do it en mass. A few soldiers in each platoon could be dealt with by MPs or provosts or whatever. I'm sure the system is set up so that units can be ordered to do what is normally engrained against their nature. The option could even be given for those who waiver to 'sit it out' or something. And I'm not suggesting that a coup could be pulled off without at least some dissent in the ranks. I just think it could be pulled off is all. It's really up to the senior officers is what I'm saying.

You have to watch where it has happened before. Most of the time, the soldiers end up with 'benefits' for siding with the general. The average citizens live in famine while the soldiers are well fed. It's very rare for a general to be so charismatic that his soldiers will follow him into civil war when things are good at home.

Depends what you mean by good. I'm sure chilie in the 1970s wasn't a barrel of monkeys, but was the situation so bad that a millitary coup was the best option? I don't know, but I think the line for it to be practical is higher than famine. I guess greece would be an example too.

Cuba is long overdue for a revolution, so that is people can escape the chains of Castro and communism.

To each according to his abilty, from each according to his need.

To each according to his abilty, from each according to his need.

What?

Okay, funny, but still . . .

What?

Well....if a rag tag bunch of irregulars can keep the US forces at bay in Iraq despite having helicopters and tanks, then why can't the US citizens do the samething?
Because they are fat

Because they are fat

'k. I laffed. I admit it.

What?

Okay, funny, but still . . .

What?
I have no clue. I just reversed it to see what would come out. :D

I assumed somthing good.

Our citizens are too fat to perform a coup. It has to do with the average fellow making a bit more than 9 bucks a day!

I have no clue. I just reversed it to see what would come out. :D

I assumed somthing good.
Well, the first bit was certainly properly capitalistic, so you just need to tighten up the second bit and you'll really have something there! Sell some bumperstickers and stuff!

We could do whatever we wanted to in Cuba. The question is one of political will not militray strength .
WTF does Cuba have to do with any of this?

I can't wait until the Cuban people are liberated. Hopefully by themselves.
And I hope it is a idealist communist state.

WTF does Cuba have to do with any of this?


And I hope it is a idealist communist state.

Read the basis of the thread.

You would wish more communism on Cuba? I would wish that they have the American system, and 14 times as much income.

Despite all the talk, I seriously doubt the civilians of the US would have the balls to lift a finger. Most 2nd Amendment enthusiasts can't even run the length of their block.

Despite all the talk, I seriously doubt the civilians of the US would have the balls to lift a finger. Most 2nd Amendment enthusiasts can't even run the length of their block.


hey, you can't source that! And I loves my gun! loves my gun! and I am a long distance runner. How ironic. :D :sniper:

Read the basis of the thread.
Its about a military coup of the US. It involves Cuba how?
You would wish more communism on Cuba? I would wish that they have the American system, and 14 times as much income.
Why go for the American system, when they could copy the Luxembourg model, and have 19.9 times the income?

Its about a military coup of the US. It involves Cuba how?



It involves Cuba because Cuba is the only country where this could happen very soon.

It involves Cuba because Cuba is the only country where this could happen very soon.
Mexico?

Okay, granted. But for mutiny to be effective in this case you would need entire companies at least - including officer corps - to do it en mass. A few soldiers in each platoon could be dealt with by MPs or provosts or whatever. I'm sure the system is set up so that units can be ordered to do what is normally engrained against their nature. The option could even be given for those who waiver to 'sit it out' or something. And I'm not suggesting that a coup could be pulled off without at least some dissent in the ranks. I just think it could be pulled off is all. It's really up to the senior officers is what I'm saying.

Military Coups cannot be succesful without the support of the soldiers. It would be fairly common knowledge even among the lowest grunt that what the treasonous general aspires to do is illegal, and treasonous. And it's not just the soldiers, but the entire infrastructure that supports them. In a nation with a huge history of civil disobedience, the difficulties of maintaining martial law would be obvious.

Generals that overthrow legitimate governments live in fear of the soldiers that put them in power. Once that genie is out of the bottle, the stigma of 'seizing the throne' will be forever gone, and the succession to the nation will always be contested by who has the loyalty of the troops. A general who doesn't keep his troops happy will soon find himself replaced.

It's the soldiers that call the shots.

Take a look at how many Roman Emperors were replaced by dissatisfied troops. The republic fell because the Senate allowed senators to fund, recruit, train, and lead soldiers into battle all on their own dime.

The same could happen in the US, if

a) Economic conditions were drastically worse than they are now. Think Great Depression.
b) If there were any legitimate reason to seize control of the capital, it would set a precedent whereby future military leaders would follow.
c) The government cuts costs by allowing corporations to fund armies directly in return for 'use' of said forces for international purposes.

Depends what you mean by good. I'm sure chilie in the 1970s wasn't a barrel of monkeys, but was the situation so bad that a millitary coup was the best option? I don't know, but I think the line for it to be practical is higher than famine. I guess greece would be an example too.

I'm not saying it's impossible. Just highly unlikely. It all depends on where the loyalty of the soldiers lie.

You would wish more communism on Cuba? I would wish that they have the American system, and 14 times as much income.

Wow, two major political parties instead of one! Quite an improvement...

I bet it would certainly hurt their education and healthcare....

And this is the wall I always come up against, this first bit right here. I'm honestly frickin' fed up with people assuming the worst of their fellowmen. If we're so stupid, why do we have digital watches now instead of sundials? We're not half as dumb as the mindless, suicidal combat automatons you describe.

No just soldiers who spent most of their time together when they are not at home with their families. You forget, or do not even know, just how deep that friendship runs.

Assuming it ever got that far, no, I honestly don't think they would revert to a tribal simian-pack mentality when the people they're sizing up are garden-variety Americans. They'd have to be uniformly psychotic to engage American civilians without any form of disaffection. No sale.

Once again, you apparently do not know anything at all about soldiers.

That's as may be, but again, this is predicated on both sides comporting themselves as nonhuman combatants in a video game.

:rolleyes:

hey, you can't source that! And I loves my gun! loves my gun! and I am a long distance runner. How ironic. :D :sniper:


Makes me wonder what you would call long distance :D