NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about all the checks and balances and stuff and wonder if the United States government can be overthrown. It seems very hard, even with a de facto dictator. Say the president had a loyal militia/secret police. They could keep the president in power, but they wouldn't be able to do much unless they controlled the IRS or had enough money. I've also thought you could take over all the necessary legislatures and pass amendments to make a dictator, but even that is hard. It seems to me that the United States is coup-proof.

Did that make any sense?

gee, seems the founders had a good idea with all this checks and balances shit huh?

Who would have thought.

Did that make any sense?

No.

Did that make any sense?

No.

I don't the US is coup-proof, IIRC the military is loyal to the nation not the state, if the need for new leadership was dire enough the military could turn on the hand that feeds them, that usually spells death for a country...

The United States has already been overthrown. You just haven't noticed yet because I'm a very lazy dictator. Live and let live, say I. (Except I say it with Secret Police and an Iron Fist)

I doubt that there's such a thing as coup-proof, but historically the US Presidential system of checks and balances is more prone to such problems.

It would be incredibly difficult for a coup to be successful in the US. though perhaps not impossible.

I've been thinking about all the checks and balances and stuff and wonder if the United States government can be overthrown. It seems very hard, even with a de facto dictator. Say the president had a loyal militia/secret police. They could keep the president in power, but they wouldn't be able to do much unless they controlled the IRS or had enough money. I've also thought you could take over all the necessary legislatures and pass amendments to make a dictator, but even that is hard. It seems to me that the United States is coup-proof.

Did that make any sense?

Enough sense, anyway. I don't completely agree, though.

No nation is coup-proof. Some, such as the US, have a multi-faced govenment structure that would make a coup very difficult, but it would not be impossible. For a coup d'etat to work in the US, the force conducting the coup would need to be able to take control of all three arms of the government, plus the Joint Chiefs, and at least a majority of the permanent undersecretaries of the Treasury, Justice and State departments.

Frankly, a very tall order.

Anything less would almost certainly lead to Civil War, as the remains of the ousted, legal government act to take control of the military. I would have to believe that the military would stand by it's oaths - which would mean going against the coup.

So, no, the US isn't coup-proof. It is, however, the next best thing.

I don't think checks and balances would really help with a coup, especially since most come from outside the government. I know there are instances where someone (i.e Hitler) came up through the ranks of government to take control, however most come from the "outside".

A coup if it did succeed in removing the president and the other branches of government would be crushed by the military. Plain and simple a coup would not happen successfully in the US. I cannot think of any instance where a coup would work and maintain it's control over the whole US.

A coup if it did succeed in removing the president and the other branches of government would be crushed by the military. Plain and simple a coup would not happen successfully in the US. I cannot think of any instance where a coup would work and maintain it's control over the whole US.

and what if it was the military that tried to take power?

and what if it was the military that tried to take power?

what part of the military? The US military is rather large and, counting reservists etc, is over 3 million people.

The US military is freaking huge. How much of it would suddenly form a coup? Besides, it's not sufficient to just ask "how" but mainly "why". Militaries that get paid, are not forced into conscription or treated poorly tend not to rebel.

Enough sense, anyway. I don't completely agree, though.

No nation is coup-proof. Some, such as the US, have a multi-faced govenment structure that would make a coup very difficult, but it would not be impossible. For a coup d'etat to work in the US, the force conducting the coup would need to be able to take control of all three arms of the government

Not at all.

He'd just need to have the military and police willing to enforce every edict he sends down. Then the courts and legislature wouldn't do a damn thing.

What people don't realize is that our whole system of government relies upon people respecting the Constitution at least to the extent that they'll step down when their term expires and listen to whoever the Constitution says they have to. When someone is able to get the military to go along with whatever he says, or has a private military more powerful than the national one, he'll be able to run amok.

A traditional coup would be almost impossible in the US, you not only have to take the federal government which is hard, but the states as well.

In ancient Rome, though, what happened was that the "president" was given more and more power until one day, they just gave all the power to him. That could happen in the US but it would be a long process. And no, I don't think that's what Bush or the Republicans want.

A coup if it did succeed in removing the president and the other branches of government would be crushed by the military. Plain and simple a coup would not happen successfully in the US. I cannot think of any instance where a coup would work and maintain it's control over the whole US.

The military is an absolute hierarchy, though. If no one is willing (or able) to give the line forces orders to break from the new, illegal government, it's always going to be easier to just go along. The time limits on that are quite narrow - if no one opposes the coup within a week of it occuring, then the likelihood is that the coup will succeed.

That's why it would be absolutely necessary to seize or subvert the Joint Chiefs. If even one of them got away, he would have the authority, both moral and legal, to unleash the military as a whole against the coup.

Clairitonia
I don't think checks and balances would really help with a coup, especially since most come from outside the government. I know there are instances where someone (i.e Hitler) came up through the ranks of government to take control, however most come from the "outside".

Actually, most coups are inside jobs. It's the head of the army, or the Vice-President, or a clique of legislators that are usually behind a coup, not outside forces. Outsiders also usually fail; they don't understand the intricacies of government, and either miss someone vital who can then smash them, or prove incapable of running what they've seized and are ousted in a counter-coup.

and what if it was the military that tried to take power?

Well you could not get the whole military on board with this plan. It would likely be a small group and then they would be crushed by the loyalists. I would even throw on the old uniform to help crush a coup like that.

what part of the military? The US military is rather large and, counting reservists etc, is over 3 million people.

The US military is freaking huge. How much of it would suddenly form a coup? Besides, it's not sufficient to just ask "how" but mainly "why". Militaries that get paid, are not forced into conscription or treated poorly tend not to rebel.

I imagine, if the joint chiefs wanted to, they could all do a Junta type of Government.

A coup if it did succeed in removing the president and the other branches of government would be crushed by the military.most Coups are performed by the Military.
Check and balances? like congress, parliament, Courts, etc? The military (once they have decided that they want to be Dictators) do not care about that.

A Military Coup has rarely been stopped by the people.
You need the people(insurgents) to be armed to stop a coup.
here is where the second amendment is useful.

Not at all.

He'd just need to have the military and police willing to enforce every edict he sends down. Then the courts and legislature wouldn't do a damn thing.

What people don't realize is that our whole system of government relies upon people respecting the Constitution at least to the extent that they'll step down when their term expires and listen to whoever the Constitution says they have to. When someone is able to get the military to go along with whatever he says, or has a private military more powerful than the national one, he'll be able to run amok.

Yes and no. That sort of coup has been tried in various places, but it usually doesn't work.

Government is more than juat a bunch of rules, just as a flag is more than just a piece of cloth. Unless a nation has drifted so far into decadence that people have ceased to care about anything but themselves, they will fight to retain what they consider "their" government.

That's why most guerrilla uprisings and civil wars ultimately fail. The advantage the traditional coup has, is that it LOOKS like business as usual; nothings changed except a few names. People who will lay down their lives in defence of what they think of as theirs are lulled into a sense of security - sure, it's a hiccough, but the system's still here. Even when it isn't.

most Coups are performed by the Military.

And here in America, since the military is so loved, it'd almost be a cinch for the military to pull it off.

most Coups are performed by the Military.

I already answered to this scenerio. However I would like to hear if anyone has a plausible scenerio where the military would overthrow a elected government of the US.

I already answered to this scenerio. However I would like to hear if anyone has a plausible scenerio where the military would overthrow a elected government of the US.

Nancy Pelosi is elected pres, and then cuts spending to the military by 85%. Im sure that would be a plausible scenario, IMO

Nancy Pelosi is elected pres, and then cuts spending to the military by 85%. Im sure that would be a plausible scenario, IMO

Er, doesn't the authority to pass budget restrictions on the military belong to Congress, not to the President?

Nancy Pelosi is elected pres, and then cuts spending to the military by 85%. Im sure that would be a plausible scenario, IMO

She may be a lib from SF but she wouldn't do that in her right mind. Also her being elected president is a huge stretch.

Here is a linky from the Great Depression.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

I already answered to this scenerio. However I would like to hear if anyone has a plausible scenerio where the military would overthrow a elected government of the US.

Here's one: The US gets involved in a civil war in South America, the bad way, the way we did in Vietnam. The military does it's best, but is starved of resources and funds; soldiers die for lack of basic equipment. They nevertheless all but defeat the enemy forces, drive the insurgents out, but only by using brutal and efficient tactics, such as destroying entire towns in rebel areas with air strikes and incinerating whole regions using heavy ordinance.

The US electorate, horrified by the carnage (which is shown nightly by the news services, which also completely ignores the atrocities comitted by the other side) elects a pacifist Congress and Presidency. The President's first act is to pull our troops out of the fighting on the verge of victory. His second is to meet the rebel leadership in Paris, apologize for the US's war mongering and promise reparations to "this legitimate government".

The military is only human. If you treat them like dogs, they will bite you.

She may be a lib from SF but she wouldn't do that in her right mind. Also her being elected president is a huge stretch.

Well, you didn't say it had to be realisitic :p

Er, doesn't the authority to pass budget restrictions on the military belong to Congress, not to the President?

Erm....dang..beat me there!

Well, you didn't say it had to be realisitic :p


I did say plausible. ;)

Here's one: The US gets involved in a civil war in South America, the bad way, the way we did in Vietnam. The military does it's best, but is starved of resources and funds; soldiers die for lack of basic equipment. They nevertheless all but defeat the enemy forces, drive the insurgents out, but only by using brutal and efficient tactics, such as destroying entire towns in rebel areas with air strikes and incinerating whole regions using heavy ordinance.

The US electorate, horrified by the carnage (which is shown nightly by the news services, which also completely ignores the atrocities comitted by the other side) elects a pacifist Congress and Presidency. The President's first act is to pull our troops out of the fighting on the verge of victory. His second is to meet the rebel leadership in Paris, apologize for the US's war mongering and promise reparations to "this legitimate government".

The military is only human. If you treat them like dogs, they will bite you.

Even after the Vietnam fiasco I think that in itself proves the military would not overthrow the elected government. It would be extremely difficult to get enough troops to go along with a plan to take out the government. I know that if I were still in that I would not follow those orders. In fact I would seek out loyalist to form units to stop the rebels.

Even after the Vietnam fiasco I think that in itself proves the military would not overthrow the elected government. It would be extremely difficult to get enough troops to go along with a plan to take out the government. I know that if I were still in that I would not follow those orders. In fact I would seek out loyalist to form units to stop the rebels.


I'm sure any "loyalist" will be shot and disposed of :)

Even after the Vietnam fiasco I think that in itself proves the military would not overthrow the elected government. It would be extremely difficult to get enough troops to go along with a plan to take out the government. I know that if I were still in that I would not follow those orders. In fact I would seek out loyalist to form units to stop the rebels.

I'd like to think I'd've done the same - but honestly, I'm not sure I would have, then. Obedience to orders is so strong in enlisted personnel that they will obey orders that get them killed - and that they see will get them killed, yet they obey anyway.

And if I was betrayed by my own government as I showed, I don't think I'd want to disobey.

I'd like to think I'd've done the same - but honestly, I'm not sure I would have, then. Obedience to orders is so strong in enlisted personnel that they will obey orders that get them killed - and that they see will get them killed, yet they obey anyway.

And if I was betrayed by my own government as I showed, I don't think I'd want to disobey.

I can't speak with any certainty on the subject, but i'd think you'd need a bit more to catalyse the army into a coup.

For instance in the Roman republic, the means of securing rewards for the armies was bound up in their generals who'd use political means to get ehm from the senate. And so when that failed politically, they'd use military means.

So in your scenario with the pascifist party getting into power, you'd want a strong contender for the presidential race coming from the military itself. Then you'd want convincing allegations of electoral fraud or other indications that the political process had broken down. Added to the feeling that the new party were siding with the enemy against America, then you might, if the failed presidential contender were crazy enough and charismatic enough, have enough to precipitate the military to try to restore the country to 'how it should be'. Possibly?

I can't speak with any certainty on the subject, but i'd think you'd need a bit more to catalyse the army into a coup.

For instance in the Roman republic, the means of securing rewards for the armies was bound up in their generals who'd use political means to get ehm from the senate.

So in your scenario with the pascifist party getting into power, you'd want a strong contender for the presidential race coming from the military itself. Then you'd want convincing allegations of electoral fraud or other indications that the political process had broken down. Added to the feeling that the new party were siding with the enemy against America, then you might, if the failed presidential contender were crazy enough and charismatic enough, have enough to precipitate the military to try to restore the country to 'how it should be'. Possibly?

That would certainly help. It would make it a lot easier for the troops to believe they were protecting the US, rather then opposing it.

The extensive bureaucracy, combined with Federalism, disparate military services with no clear overall leader (and poorly designed for occupation duties, instead built as power projection units) and the high levels of independence of the governments of the states make the United States an extremely difficult target for any group attempting to make use of a coup d'etat to gain control of the US Government.

Oh, and tens of millions of privately held firearms floating around in the ether don't make it any easier for a central authority to take control of the US.

No.

I don't the US is coup-proof, IIRC the military is loyal to the nation not the state, if the need for new leadership was dire enough the military could turn on the hand that feeds them, that usually spells death for a country...

The US Military is sworn to protect the Constitution.

The US Military is sworn to protect the Constitution.

And if the generals decided that the current government was a threat to the constitution?

And if the generals decided that the current government was a threat to the constitution?

The difficulty is that you would have to convince alot of Americans with guns that the government was a threat to the constitution. I think in this day and age it would be near impossible to have an effective force to overthrow.

And if the generals decided that the current government was a threat to the constitution?

The government cannot act outside of the bounds of the Constitution, and if it does, it is countered through the ability of the other civil branches to challenge it. We have seen this to be the case, even in the most grim of Constitutional crises (esp. Watergate).

More than that, the US has intentionally fostered a mild inter-service rivalry, for, amongst other reasons, distributing the power of the armed forces, to weaken their ability to act indpendently of the governmental command structures.

The difficulty is that you would have to convince alot of Americans with guns that the government was a threat to the constitution. I think in this day and age it would be near impossible to have an effective force to overthrow.

There's probably be a lot of people who'd agree with the military in the circumstances. And without generalising too much, thery're more likely to be those with the guns.
Secondly, in my version of it where you have the other presidential candidate leading the coup, all he'd have to do is quickly sweep in and seize washington, before those citizens with guns had time to resist at all. Quickly 'prove' the electoral malpractice or whatever and then he's the legitimate presidential winner anyway.

There's probably be a lot of people who'd agree with the military in the circumstances. And without generalising too much, thery're more likely to be those with the guns.
Secondly, in my version of it where you have the other presidential candidate leading the coup, all he'd have to do is quickly sweep in and seize washington, before those citizens with guns had time to resist at all. Quickly 'prove' the electoral malpractice or whatever and then he's the legitimate presidential winner anyway.

Not an easy task, not at all.

Not an easy task, not at all.
Which bit? Seizing washington? i don't necessarily mean the whole city. Just the capitol etc. and then just long enough to get rid of the current incumbents, hold a bit of a show trial etc. The only force organised enough to stop you is the military and you''ll have either secured its support or its inactivity. And there're no figureheads to crystalise a response around because you've removed them.

Here is a linky from the Great Depression.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

Clark told Butler that he would spend half his $60 million fortune to save the other half.


hahahaha!

Which bit? Seizing washington? i don't necessarily mean the whole city. Just the capitol etc. and then just long enough to get rid of the current incumbents, hold a bit of a show trial etc. The only force organised enough to stop you is the military and you''ll have either secured its support or its inactivity. And there're no figureheads to crystalise a response around because you've removed them.

Except that such a move would most likely be easily spotted, and moves would be made by the existing government to counter it, before any such organized group could reach the capitol or the White House.

Furthermore, the strategic nuclear command authority would also remain in place, in the event that most of the executive were to be incapacitated, as at least one cabinet secretary would likely have gotten away.

The cooperation of the bureaucracy would be far from guaranteed, and any coup would fail without the support of the professionals who keep the US government running, day-to-day.

Except that such a move would most likely be easily spotted, and moves would be made by the existing government to counter it, before any such organized group could reach the capitol or the White House.

Furthermore, the strategic nuclear command authority would also remain in place, in the event that most of the executive were to be incapacitated, as at least one cabinet secretary would likely have gotten away.

The cooperation of the bureaucracy would be far from guaranteed, and any coup would fail without the support of the professionals who keep the US government running, day-to-day.
Well it's clearly not a certainty, but there are a number of ways you could counter some of those problems.
You could organise a bit of a protest march or something as a way of getting enough infantry in the area to seize the major political buildings as well as a small airbourne element until the cavalry can arrive. Again it's not as though there's going to be anyone to stop you until you can build up decisive force, and surprise will carry you through that.

Again i wouldn't be hugely worried about the occasional isolated cabinet secretary or uncooperative bureacrat. Most people aren't heroes and with some hastily voted through emergency powers, they can be declared enemies of the state.

I don't know.

I don't know.

You Win the Thread!

Press alt+F4 to recieve your prize!

You Win the Thread!

Press alt+F4 to recieve your prize!

Command-W if you're on a Mac.

Command-W if you're on a Mac.

:headbang:

How could I forget!

Thanks for the reminder:fluffle:

Doubtful, the US was deisgned to be a large, slow argument that takes forever to get anything done unless it's an emergency (Then it only takes half of forever). While the military could effect a coup (Assuming something really strange happens and all the men and women in the military suddenly decide that they are not connected with the nation), they couldn't contain the sucker. The media and Internet would have the situation nailed within hours, riling up the rest of the nation, many of whom would not support it (see large, slow, argument). It's not immune, because something could happen, but it would be very difficult.

The US military is loyal to the country first, not to the president or to their commanders; they would never agree to overthrow the very things they're fighting for in exchange for being subjected to a military dictatorship. That would be an insult to everything their fellow soldiers and surviving veterans have fought and died for throughout history.

Hell, if the Communist hard liners in the USSR couldn't pull off a coup in 1991 then there's definitely no chance of it in the US.

In ancient Rome, though, what happened was that the "president" was given more and more power until one day, they just gave all the power to him. That could happen in the US but it would be a long process. And no, I don't think that's what Bush or the Republicans want.

Well... I personally think Bush is trying to eventually pull a coup like that (patriot act, constant military fighting to try and rally support for more 'security', etc), but that he's failing miserably.

A Military Coup has rarely been stopped by the people.
You need the people(insurgents) to be armed to stop a coup.
here is where the second amendment is useful.

Very true. An unarmed populace is easy to take over, however, the U.S. populace actually is counted as the sixth largest military force in the world (the U.S. military being the first). If the military DID try a coup, they'd have the most violent conflict on their hands that it had ever faced, while simultaneously having plenty of people on the inside willing to turn on them... not a good recipe for success.

The only way a coup could work would have two requirements. One, the military would have to be ineffective against it for some reason, and Two, it'd have to have the backing of the U.S. people. Generally, people will fight for freedoms, but rarely fight to give them up (and having them go against is the most likely situation for a successful revolt, historically speaking). As such, to coup against the U.S., the government replacing it would have to have much more freedom and personal security (such as possibly a true democracy like Athens had in its heyday, rather than the overbearing representative democracy that runs the U.S. now.)

I've been thinking about all the checks and balances and stuff and wonder if the United States government can be overthrown. It seems very hard, even with a de facto dictator. Say the president had a loyal militia/secret police. They could keep the president in power, but they wouldn't be able to do much unless they controlled the IRS or had enough money. I've also thought you could take over all the necessary legislatures and pass amendments to make a dictator, but even that is hard. It seems to me that the United States is coup-proof.

Did that make any sense?

No nation is coup-proof. It would be difficult to have a coup in the US, but not impossible. All you need are enough angry, armed, disaffected people.

Isn't the point of the 2nd ammendment that the people should overthrow(coup if you will) the government if the go batshit crazy?

Isn't the point of the 2nd ammendment that the people should overthrow(coup if you will) the government if the go batshit crazy?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that every country needed a little revolution now and then.

Isn't the point of the 2nd ammendment that the people should overthrow(coup if you will) the government if the go batshit crazy?
I would put it more to making sure that the state(s) had a millita to call up. Remember, the founders were very much against a standing army.

Though it was a mixture of the two (How relivent the second reason is now in the age of modern military tech is a debate I don't want to start again).

Have I missed something, because there already has been or am I wrong
in thinking that the country in question is run by the oil companies
regardless of which sock puppet party is in "power".

Or are we talking purely military coups or do the leaders of the coup by definition
have to declare they are throwing out the constitution and checks
and balances rather than just undermining them and rendering them meaningless.

I’m curious: just what effect do you think an armed population would have in a possible coup?

No no, hear me out for a second… it’s not as easy as “well dooh, they’d oppose the army!”


As far as I can tell, Americans, in general, are quite loyal to the president and to the army. The president must be supported or you’re unpatriotic. The army must be idealised and the soldiers treated as heroes or you’re un-American.
Think about all the shit that Bush has done: two wars (one of them highly dubious), the loss of civil rights (various anti-terror laws), and a gung-ho “with us or against us” attitude in regards to foreign countries. Maybe it’s just me, but if I lived in America I’d be packing my stuff and looking for another place to live.
And yet, Bush has gotten away with it for a long time without any major opposition from neither the Democrats nor the population. Bush had the run of the country for a long time – without any kind of opposition.


Perhaps that’s the way to do a coup? Play on the pride (arrogance?) of the American people, make sure to “buy” the army with increased funding, use your control of the Houses to push your legislation through – and bingo, dictator for life…

And yet, Bush has gotten away with it for a long time without any major opposition from neither the Democrats nor the population. Bush had the run of the country for a long time – without any kind of opposition.


Perhaps that’s the way to do a coup? Play on the pride (arrogance?) of the American people, make sure to “buy” the army with increased funding, use your control of the Houses to push your legislation through – and bingo, dictator for life…

Happened in Germany.

I’m curious: just what effect do you think an armed population would have in a possible coup?

No no, hear me out for a second… it’s not as easy as “well dooh, they’d oppose the army!”


As far as I can tell, Americans, in general, are quite loyal to the president and to the army. The president must be supported or you’re unpatriotic. The army must be idealised and the soldiers treated as heroes or you’re un-American.

Except you're wrong, last time I checked a lot of people didn't like George Bush.

Think about all the shit that Bush has done: two wars (one of them highly dubious), the loss of civil rights (various anti-terror laws), and a gung-ho “with us or against us” attitude in regards to foreign countries. Maybe it’s just me, but if I lived in America I’d be packing my stuff and looking for another place to live.

Having unwise or unpopular policies is not a sign of coup attempt. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for Confederate sympathisers, Woodrow Wilson had people thrown in jail for criticizing WWI or the Allies, FDR had thousands of Americans interned because they were of Japanese descent. None of them tried to stage a coup and take power.

And yet, Bush has gotten away with it for a long time without any major opposition from neither the Democrats nor the population. Bush had the run of the country for a long time – without any kind of opposition.


Perhaps that’s the way to do a coup? Play on the pride (arrogance?) of the American people, make sure to “buy” the army with increased funding, use your control of the Houses to push your legislation through – and bingo, dictator for life…

Lots people supported Bush until recently because they agreed with him, now that they disagree or have been disillusioned they don't support him anymore.

It never cease to amaze me that the same poeple who rail about how stupid Bush and the "neocons" are still credit them with stealing an election (some people even say two) and masterminding this elaborate plot to create some sort of police state or New World Order.

Bush had the run of the country for a long time – without any kind of opposition.

Not really. Even when he had a Republican-majority Senate and Congress, he didn't have a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes in the Senate). The Democrats filibustered a number of the President's judicial nominees, and the Republicans failed to change the Senate rules when they had the opportunity so that judicial nominees couldn't be filibustered. And the President also didn't get major policies like Social Security reform passed either.

And that's just opposition from the Senate and Congress. News coverage in general has been anything but supportive, except for a few months in late 2001.

Perhaps that’s the way to do a coup? Play on the pride (arrogance?) of the American people, make sure to “buy” the army with increased funding, use your control of the Houses to push your legislation through – and bingo, dictator for life…

The first thing that would happen if any such legislation were introduced would be that one party or the other, or elements of both, would attempt to block it. If somehow there was a majority in the House and/or Senate in support of such a bill, there would certainly be a Senate filibuster. A 60-vote majority in favor of such a bill is a real long-shot.

Next, if any such bill actually passed both Houses and was signed into law, there would be stampedes to every Federal courthouse in the country seeking to have it thrown out as unconstitutional. And it almost certainly would be. Can't imagine (realistically) any potential coup planners would have subverted the Supreme Court.

But finally, if the bill somehow didn't get invalidated, there is no way it would be enforced and no way the people as a whole would obey it. The American people aren't going to agree that someone is now in control of the country just because he and his henchmen in Washington say so.

Oh, and "buying" the armed forces won't work either. Most if not all servicemen and servicewomen (based at least on those I know, including family members) aren't in it for the money, but to serve the country. The percentage that could be bought in order to support a coup is probably between unmeasurable and zero.

The only way I see anyone even thinking of seizing power would be if the country were actually under attack and the sitting President were incapable of defending the nation. And even then, there would practically have to be fighting in the streets all over the country before we got to that point, and I don't see that happening, realistically, 24 notwithstanding.

Another factor to consider is that in many coup prone states, like those all over Africa or South America, military commanders can reamin at their posts for years and turn their units into personal fiefdoms loyal to them first and the nation second (if at all). In the US commanders are typically only in a billet for at most 3-4 years, not enough time to amass a personality cult.

I should probably clarify a bit…

I’m aware that Bush is not nearly as popular now as he used to be. And that he never had complete control of the Houses.

The question I wanted to ask was whether or not the population would actually oppose the president and army in the case of a coup – especially given the Americans almost automatic support for the president and army unless he / they really screwed up. And I used the support for Bush, and the laws that he’s passed, to illustrated this.

Ahh well, perhaps Anti-Social Darwinism had a better example: Germany…

I've been thinking about all the checks and balances and stuff and wonder if the United States government can be overthrown. It seems very hard, even with a de facto dictator. Say the president had a loyal militia/secret police. They could keep the president in power, but they wouldn't be able to do much unless they controlled the IRS or had enough money. I've also thought you could take over all the necessary legislatures and pass amendments to make a dictator, but even that is hard. It seems to me that the United States is coup-proof.

Did that make any sense?

it seems to me, that america's current regeme is living proof that this is mistaken. doesn't take a totally loyal ..., reality these days IS a bit more subtle then that, it does take the complicity of congress and the public. but with an administration elected under such suspicios circumstances as to make it somewhat questionable as to whether they really were "elected", that DID have a congress that kissed its ass for the better part of six years, with the stunt of 20 guys willing to kill themselves doing so having ripped off four airplains and knocked down 2 1/2 buildings to get the public behind what masquardes as a response to that event, defacto kingmade by the same conscousless economic interests that control the media that all but freely molds public oppinion, we have, after the fact, precisely such a "coup" as a sitting reality.

as for suspending elections, well two things: one the corporatocracy doesn't have to do so overtly, they can just keep feeding us their own hand puppets and most of the sheeple won't even notice. but they've gone and given themselves yet another option by enacting legislation, while they still had a slave congress, that would make it easier for the president to impose a military regeme in the event of any sort of emergency that threatened "continuation of government", such as, for example, a totaly colapse of the economy, such as might be a not unlikely sequil to military adventurinsm on ever increasing numbers of fronts untill it becomes inevetable and unavoidable. and thus dictatorship, overt as well as exists more or less covertly now, is quite and very possible.

it remains to be seen whether congress and the judiciary even togather have the strength to prevent this.

yes the "checks and balances" system was and still is a good idea. just one that is criticly weakened by the attourny general being a presidential appointee and the executive being able to control any and all documentary evidence of its malpheasance under the pretense of national security.

=^^=
.../\...

what part of the military? The US military is rather large and, counting reservists etc, is over 3 million people.

The US military is freaking huge. How much of it would suddenly form a coup? Besides, it's not sufficient to just ask "how" but mainly "why". Militaries that get paid, are not forced into conscription or treated poorly tend not to rebel.

Don't forget the reserves, national guards and former military personnel. Or militias. If someone somehow managed to take over in DC, they wouldn't have anything under their control. The state governors would likely be able to summon a much bigger force than any coup leader could. The US system is more difficult to overthrow than any other system.

more difficult perhapse, but no system is foolproof, and the governors ARE trying to get togather to do something about the current problem. i think the denyers (that we HAVE a defacto dictatorship coup in america) are ether getting their news from the corporate media, or expecting and trying to coerce everyone else into, doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

Lets keep in mind the way that military coups are done.

Historically, they are led by a few pissed off members of the ruling political part, with the use of very few military forces. These folks will work behind the scenes trying to get other politicians to back them and support them. Then, they will have to find a military commander to agree with them.

The military forces that are used for a coup are always loyal to the military commander involved in the coup. When the take over occurs, they will isolate the president and his/her closest allies, and will take over the major media outlets such as radio/tv/newspapers.

If you look at the attempted coups that ocurred in the Phillipines agains President Corazon Aquino, it was not successful because the majority of the military was loyal to the country, not to the commanders. The other successful coups, such as the one recently in the Sechelle Islands was due to the military leader having a very small military force that he can directly command and influence; and which is also the strongest force in the country.

Those this mean that the US is coup proof? I cannot say it is. However, keep this in mind. We have about 3 million members in the armed forces. Two thirds happen to be Reserve and National Guard. That means that they are part time soldiers, that spend over 95% of their time in their homes and their communities. It will be very unlikely that a majority of the reserve/ng component will go along with a coup. Not to mention, that there are an estimanted 85 million firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US. That alone holds more more check against a coup than anything else.

Vic

gee, seems the founders had a good idea with all this checks and balances shit huh?

Who would have thought.

If a sizeable portion of the US military favored the President strongly (no matter who it happened to be), the US is not immune from a military coup.

The President has the power to declare a national emergency, and declare martial law. Only for a short time - after which he is answerable to Congress.

If a suitable national emergency cropped up - say, a deadly pandemic, or a nuclear detonation by terrorists on US soil - he could declare it.

If the military really backed him, he could make it permanent. After all, Congress is just people without guns, and they can be shot.

If a sizeable portion of the US military favored the President strongly (no matter who it happened to be), the US is not immune from a military coup.

The President has the power to declare a national emergency, and declare martial law. Only for a short time - after which he is answerable to Congress.

If a suitable national emergency cropped up - say, a deadly pandemic, or a nuclear detonation by terrorists on US soil - he could declare it.

If the military really backed him, he could make it permanent. After all, Congress is just people without guns, and they can be shot.


The ‘military’ in the US is not some separate caste of people removed from the general population – the citizen soldier model is one we have followed since the beginning. You have the regular military composed of people who would not be any more predisposed toward a dictatorship than the common citizen. The Reservists are part of the general population so it would be unfeasible to get them to go along with it. The National Guard is tied to their state and under the control of the Governors, so you cannot assume they would be interested in supporting a national dictator. Then you have the militia – which are very local and generally in favor of devolved power structures so you can practically guarantee they would oppose any attempt to create a dictatorship. On top of that, you have the general population.

The only way a dictatorship could be imposed is if it had strong support from the general population – which is highly unlikely just on general principle.

The prospect of a coup in the US is about as likely as a red state vs blue state civil war. It is built upon misconceptions of American society and belies a total lack of understanding the structure of the military, the power of the populace, and the sheer scale involved.

The only way a dictatorship could be imposed is if it had strong support from the general population – which is highly unlikely just on general principle.

Not any more unlikely than 1934 Germany.

To me, the trick would to be having the military support the coup under the belief that they (the military) are protecting the country from an external threat with a sizable portion of the population supporting this external threat.

Fake terrorist strikes could accomplish this goal. Especially if they are coupled with a weak pacifist Democrat candidate and a veteran Republican, with the "rigged polls" and whatnot that Yossarian lives was talking about upthread.

Divide and conquer. Sow suspicion and distrust in the populace so that people will be scared to trust others, or interfere when the authorities step outside constitutional bounds. The enemy are hiding in the people. For the sake of freedom and security, we must target the people.

It can be done. If it were one, it would be done slowly and subtly.

To me, the trick would to be having the military support the coup under the belief that they (the military) are protecting the country from an external threat with a sizable portion of the population supporting this external threat.

Fake terrorist strikes could accomplish this goal. Especially if they are coupled with a weak pacifist Democrat candidate and a veteran Republican, with the "rigged polls" and whatnot that Yossarian lives was talking about upthread.

Divide and conquer. Sow suspicion and distrust in the populace so that people will be scared to trust others, or interfere when the authorities step outside constitutional bounds. The enemy are hiding in the people. For the sake of freedom and security, we must target the people.

It can be done. If it were one, it would be done slowly and subtly.

A real terrorist strike would do it as well. Say, a single nuclear detonation on US soil.

A real terrorist strike would do it as well. Say, a single nuclear detonation on US soil.

Good point. I was kind of thinking it would be nicer to fake them so that the cabal could really control the timing, damage, media, etc. for full effect. But if the cabal simply let one happen where and when it was most expedient, then it wouldn't leave any trail that could not be plausibly denied.

Good point. I was kind of thinking it would be nicer to fake them so that the cabal could really control the timing, damage, media, etc. for full effect. But if the cabal simply let one happen where and when it was most expedient, then it wouldn't leave any trail that could not be plausibly denied.

Love your tinfoil hat.

Keep in mind that we still had elections on time during the Civil War.

Keep in mind that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus just by saying so during the Civil War.

Keep in mind that Lincoln ordered troops into the Maryland State House in Annapolis, and with a rifle pointed at the head of each delegate, forced Maryland to vote to stay in the Union.

Keep in mind that the Federal Government used Gatling guns to massacre anti-war protesters and anti-draft protesters in New York City during the Civil War.

You were saying?

Keep in mind that we still had elections on time during the Civil War.

We do not have a parliamentary system, so even if elections were delayed for weeks it wouldn't change the day of transition.

No matter who it was, if they tried to do away with election they would see an insurrection. Given that the military is not separate from the general population, you would not be able to impose a brutal repression.

A military coup is simply not possible in modern America.

Historically, they are led by a few pissed off members of the ruling political part, with the use of very few military forces.

Depends on the part of the world in question.

The other successful coups, such as the one recently in the Sechelle Islands was due to the military leader having a very small military force that he can directly command and influence; and which is also the strongest force in the country.

I do believe you mean Fiji. :confused:

A more interesting question would be who would try to take over the US with a coup? All the factions within the US who have even the slightest chance are already profiting from the system.

A more interesting question would be who would try to take over the US with a coup? All the factions within the US who have even the slightest chance are already profiting from the system.

There won't be any attempt until we realize that Democrats and Republicans are actually the same party - and then it will be too late.

Keep in mind that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus just by saying so during the Civil War.

Keep in mind that Lincoln ordered troops into the Maryland State House in Annapolis, and with a rifle pointed at the head of each delegate, forced Maryland to vote to stay in the Union.

Keep in mind that the Federal Government used Gatling guns to massacre anti-war protesters and anti-draft protesters in New York City during the Civil War.

You were saying?

Every government, authoritarian or libertarian, free-market or controlled-market, has the inherent right to preserve its own existence, hence justifying the first two (if Maryland seceded, DC would be surrounded and cut off, effectively ending the war). The last one, however, is not.

Depends on the part of the world in question.



I do believe you mean Fiji. :confused:

Thank you very much, I stand corrected. Was looking at different coups and got them mixed up.

Vic