There wouldn't be another American revolution. There would only be a minor accident with a few casualties during a military training exercise.
If a second American Revolution where to happen....
- Thread starter Ninonybox_v1legacy
- Start date
I'm going to go into the how the hell did this happen camp of this camp. Also if citizens went against the US military the rebels will get their asses handed to them since the most the average civilian can muster up in terms of fire power is a hunting rifle or shotgun which isn't going to do a whole lot against an army that is trained, has better weapons, and not to mention has complete air superiority over their enemy.
Thats 3malestrithe said:
But i wouldn't be surprised if it does happen sooner or later, you live under a regime that is corrupted by lobbying and is seen as a terrorist state by many country's, even if you stopped kicking off on every 3rd world country you still supply Israel with billions and support. The working class have constantly been getting a shittier deal ever since Reagan took office. But hey if your going to vote movie stars in to office with no real political back ground expect him to bank rolled by corporations.
But don't worry, we've had the same situation here in Britain for a while as well.
But unfortunately for all the injustices apathy counts for a lot, rage at bankers but oh well i just got to the last level of GoW.
Thats probably about the same or more than what the average insurgent has...Darren716 said:
If it does come to some actual conflict driven war, its not likely you are going to see mass civilians with hunting rifles and shotguns marching on Washington D.C. Most Americans know just what asymmetrical warfare can do to a regular military, and especially ours. If there is actual conflict, it will most likely end up as pockets of insurgency attacks, and not straight up combat.
Though, again, its not likely something like that will happen, because I still cant see the average America picking up a gun and doing something like that. Compared to the "Arab Spring" countries, we have it pretty good with our government. Most would not be to likely to rock the boat unless some serious shit happens...
Depends on who starts it and why. If Texas finally does rebel because, I dunno we make it illegal to wear ten gallon hats, and its just them against everyone else I'd imagine the war would last for a bout a day and nobody outside the US would care. If we have something like all the northern states vs. all the southern states because... I dunno the north is tired of freezing there butts off and want us in the southern section to live there instead, then it would be more prolonged and probably involve many other countries siding based either on who they think will win or who they politically side base don ideology. America is a world power and having it be a mess of a war with itself isn't going to help out the global economy so I'd imagine other countries would want the war to end so it doesn't mess with there business too.
Well that seems even less likely. Americans turning radical is a lot more believable than the US dropping onto the "completely bankrupt" list.Tony said:
OT: The UN would not intervene because they don't know who to shoot at. How can you tell who is a rebel and who is innocent? They're all americans.
The idea that a revolution in the US would turn into a "hot war" that was Mil vs Civ is inconceivable, mainly for the one out all US military members have in their oath. It must be a lawful order. Most likely the Mil would either sit it out or act as the "referee" to ensure things didn't turn into a hot war. You may have the rare hot head that would try to swing to one side or the other, but all of the military's big toys: tanks, planes, helos need a lot of support. So at most that support would be short lived and quelled by the military itself.
Too many variables. And losing the orders didn't do as much damage as it should have. Sure the invasion wasn't successful, but it's just as likely that it would have failed anyway. After all, Lee's Second Invasion failed and in that one the forces were almost equal, whereas in the first, McClellan outnumbered Lee almost 2:1.Tom Roberts said:
McClellan should have won. Antietam/Sharpsburg should have been Lee's last battle. But the entire thing was so poorly handled its embarrassing. Catching Lee with only half his forces at hand, then waiting several days before attack (thereby giving Lee time to assemble his forces). And Rather than advancing on all fronts simultaneously, attacking "in echelon" allowing Confederate forces to use their interior lines to bring reinforcements to threatened areas. Not to mention the fact he kept his largest corp completely out of the fight.
Burnside didn't help matters either, sending waves of men fruitlessly over a bridge all day, without bothering to check if the water it was over was fordable (by some accounts it was actually little over waist high).
The basic problem I always have with Alternate history is it tends to suggest that changing a single thing could have drastic consequences (like the three Union soldiers NOT finding those cigars). Problem with that is there are simply too many moving parts. For all we know, if Lee had managed to assemble his forces like he planned, maybe he'd have broken them on the Union Army (like he did 2 years later at Gettysburg), except maybe this time he didn't make it back across the Potomac.
maybe, maybe...
What if, what if...
Too much guesswork to get anything solid. Most Alternate history I've read felt more like Fan-Fic. The author wanted to the South to win so dreamed up a scenario in which they did (In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a Civil War buff, so all the ALTHist I've read has been related to that).
The most comical one I read was The Guns of the South. In short: a Time traveler brings Lee's troops AK-47s. Laughed my ass off at that one.
There's nothing wrong with AltHist. I suppose it's just as valid as any literature (more so than some), but as someone who is interested in history, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's hard enough to get the facts about the history that actually happened.
I mean a lot of Americans still think The Emancipation Proclamation STARTED the Civil War.
Did I say I'd like military rule?Mygaffer said:
Fuck no I didn't. Nice job putting words in my mouth, though. And for calling me 'too stupid to live.' How are those strawmen treating you?
Egypt actually just voted on their new democratically-elected government, and that's a variation of what I'd like to see done here. Our current politicians don't obey the law (and haven't for the past hundred or so years), and a clean slate is what is needed. It would only work if the people stopped being retarded, though.
So let me be clear, since you clearly didn't read it the first time:
I would like to see a coup that returns power to the people. It would require the help of at least a portion of the military. It would not be a military-led dictatorship. I hope these are simple enough for you to understand.