There was one. I didn't work. FYI the American civil war in the south was called there second war of independence.
If a second American Revolution where to happen....
- Thread starter Ninonybox_v1legacy
- Start date
You know, I had written up multiple paragraphs explaining in polite terms, and supported by verifiable facts instead of assumption and misinformation, in response to ideas like "the military would crush any civilian resistance in days, if that" or "maybe Texas will finally shit or get off the pot" in their talk of *secession* (not rebellion) in which there is a valid argument that they may actually have the right to do that.
But I scratched it, because all this is moot. Why the hell would there be a rebellion anyway? The people who are historically most likely to rebel, are the ones who are most dependent on the government through social welfare programs. Does anyone think that's an accident? The last several Presidential elections have been won by a margin of just a few percentage points. When there are basically only two sides to anything, and those sides trade control of the House, or the Senate, or the White House, every 2-8 years, the general balance is kept closely enough in line that nobody feels like they're being shit on by the other side too hard, or for too long, to give up their cushy lifestyles and go start a rebellion. How many people in this country would give up McDonald's and cable TV for barbeque squirrel and no running water or electricity? It's not going to happen. Not unless the economy completely collapses and all those things disappear anyway.
But I scratched it, because all this is moot. Why the hell would there be a rebellion anyway? The people who are historically most likely to rebel, are the ones who are most dependent on the government through social welfare programs. Does anyone think that's an accident? The last several Presidential elections have been won by a margin of just a few percentage points. When there are basically only two sides to anything, and those sides trade control of the House, or the Senate, or the White House, every 2-8 years, the general balance is kept closely enough in line that nobody feels like they're being shit on by the other side too hard, or for too long, to give up their cushy lifestyles and go start a rebellion. How many people in this country would give up McDonald's and cable TV for barbeque squirrel and no running water or electricity? It's not going to happen. Not unless the economy completely collapses and all those things disappear anyway.
In a democracy - the government are elected individuals who are supposed to cater for the citizens of their country. If they are doing a crappy job, the peopel dont' vote them or political party members conduct a "vote of no confidence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence]", thus they are no longer in power.
In capitalism - If a company is pissing too many people off, their shares go down (EA) and they lose management and employees. Their company can become essentially worthless overnight if they cock-up big time.
So no, there won't be a "revolution" where the people "rise" up against the rulers in any western country; not even the USA, because if that many people don't want someone in power, they get voted out or just not-voted in at the next election. Presidents and Prime Ministers are not so much as "rulers" as they are representatives of the vast majority of the public, and the acting face of the country for international relations.
Now, banks being forced to reform through the use of a public uprising - I wouldn't be surprised if there were some more, bigger, ferocious protests in the future surrounding this topic.
- Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
In capitalism - If a company is pissing too many people off, their shares go down (EA) and they lose management and employees. Their company can become essentially worthless overnight if they cock-up big time.
So no, there won't be a "revolution" where the people "rise" up against the rulers in any western country; not even the USA, because if that many people don't want someone in power, they get voted out or just not-voted in at the next election. Presidents and Prime Ministers are not so much as "rulers" as they are representatives of the vast majority of the public, and the acting face of the country for international relations.
Now, banks being forced to reform through the use of a public uprising - I wouldn't be surprised if there were some more, bigger, ferocious protests in the future surrounding this topic.
- Give a man a gun, he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
A revolution in the near future is really quite improbable. While it's true that there are some divisive political parties, the fact of the matter is that the American populace as a whole is far too complacent to go to war with one another without serious provocation of the sort that would be highly improbable. We're not likely to get more than a nutjob militia here or there. The rest of us will remain docile as long as we're kept reasonably comfortable.
I mean, can you really believe that a country with obesity rates as high as ours would be moved to actual revolution? Even if the common man were somehow convinced to put down the remote and pick up a gun, revolutionaries would stand no chance of defeating the American military. The kind of guerilla tactics they would be limited to work well for defending against a force which has already invaded, but for the sorts of attacks which are necessary to defeat an enemy they would be hopelessly underpowered.
The sort of war seen during the American revolution was made possible in part by the fact that the military was decentralized, so militaries were controlled from one state to the next. You also had states with much more independence than they have now. The union government itself is far more centralized at this time, meaning that it's highly improbable that it could be split from one state to the next.
Were America to suffer the sort of devastating catastrophe that would cripple the government beyond repair, then it is fully possible that new factions might arise, but short of an all out nuclear war to decimate the country I don't think such a situation would be likely.
Point being, a second American Revolution is about as likely as another war with Britain.
I mean, can you really believe that a country with obesity rates as high as ours would be moved to actual revolution? Even if the common man were somehow convinced to put down the remote and pick up a gun, revolutionaries would stand no chance of defeating the American military. The kind of guerilla tactics they would be limited to work well for defending against a force which has already invaded, but for the sorts of attacks which are necessary to defeat an enemy they would be hopelessly underpowered.
The sort of war seen during the American revolution was made possible in part by the fact that the military was decentralized, so militaries were controlled from one state to the next. You also had states with much more independence than they have now. The union government itself is far more centralized at this time, meaning that it's highly improbable that it could be split from one state to the next.
Were America to suffer the sort of devastating catastrophe that would cripple the government beyond repair, then it is fully possible that new factions might arise, but short of an all out nuclear war to decimate the country I don't think such a situation would be likely.
Point being, a second American Revolution is about as likely as another war with Britain.
I have to agree with that. I just cannot see the people getting disgruntled enough to resort to revolting. Mass protesting is probably the furthest anything would go.FalloutJack said:
But if it were to happen... it would definitely not be pretty.
America's largest exports include food. I sincerely doubt that food would be an issue. As for oil, there are strategic military reserve fields in texas that haven't been tapped yet. So I don't think either of those would work. Also the US has more super carriers than any other nation in the world. It would take a whole SHIT ton of ships to effectively blockade the states.Tayh said:
OT: If the government has tanks and planes and the rebellion doesn't it would be the shortest revolution ever. Even then training becomes an issue that would be decisive. Personally though I think the chances of one happening are so remote that its not even funny.
The OP's idea of an American revolution reveals a stunning simplicity...of the OP's mental faculties.
A. A revolution of a majority of the American people against their government is improbable because you live in a democratic country that is divided into two partisanships of nearly the same overall size. If one half is in power, the other half feels underrepresented and vice versa. If a majority should form that doesn't like your government, you do what grownups do: vote for the opposition.
B. As your country is, generally speaking, too big to fail for world capitalism, you won't fail and the companies will do their part to make sure of that. You simply are too big of a market and too big of a debtor to let you self-destruct. And yes, I said market and debtor, not provider.
C. One people? Are you batshit crazy? You live in a federation of states. What does Texas have in common with the State of New York? Alabama with Washington? Florida with Utah? Political instability, the abandonment of grand ideas in such a system will, if anything, lead to political secession, not a major rebellion.
D. Would you rebel against a Republican president? If not, you are an ill-humored right-wing loser who doesn't have the slightest idea how to help himself politically instead of violently and more on par with terrorists, fanatics and neo-luddites than with grown-up lower-d democrats. If you would also rebel against a Republican in office, you simply aren't realistic or just trigger happy.
People like you want to do away with the democratic process. For what? Just because it sounds simpler? Revolution is not simple. Have a look at Egypt and Syria and past joyrides like Iran and China.
A. A revolution of a majority of the American people against their government is improbable because you live in a democratic country that is divided into two partisanships of nearly the same overall size. If one half is in power, the other half feels underrepresented and vice versa. If a majority should form that doesn't like your government, you do what grownups do: vote for the opposition.
B. As your country is, generally speaking, too big to fail for world capitalism, you won't fail and the companies will do their part to make sure of that. You simply are too big of a market and too big of a debtor to let you self-destruct. And yes, I said market and debtor, not provider.
C. One people? Are you batshit crazy? You live in a federation of states. What does Texas have in common with the State of New York? Alabama with Washington? Florida with Utah? Political instability, the abandonment of grand ideas in such a system will, if anything, lead to political secession, not a major rebellion.
D. Would you rebel against a Republican president? If not, you are an ill-humored right-wing loser who doesn't have the slightest idea how to help himself politically instead of violently and more on par with terrorists, fanatics and neo-luddites than with grown-up lower-d democrats. If you would also rebel against a Republican in office, you simply aren't realistic or just trigger happy.
People like you want to do away with the democratic process. For what? Just because it sounds simpler? Revolution is not simple. Have a look at Egypt and Syria and past joyrides like Iran and China.
As to a trade blockade...it is true that the US has the most mighty navy in the world now. Should a revolution start, who knows how many of those ships might change sides and redecorate the ones that don't.
And, the US has 16 seperate intelligence services, you'd expect all of them to be involved in a revolution.
Nominally, yes. In the event of a revolution, doubtful.Harkonnen64 said:
And, the US has 16 seperate intelligence services, you'd expect all of them to be involved in a revolution.
This idea of "the people" really has to go. There is no People in the singular. The idea that "the people" carried through a given revolution, whether it be the russian, the french or the american, is always superimposed on the event after the fact. There was no consensus concerning these events at the time they happend. And this sort of consensus will likley never exist.
Seeing how it would likely be Christian fundamentalists who were trying to take over and establish an Iranian-style theocracy I don't think much of the world would care how servere the government atrocities got.
If there was a rebellion, it wouldn't be civilians vs soldiers because there would be a ton of soldiers who would desert and join the side of the rebellion. It would be more like loyalist military vs rebel military.
Realy? Since when?hulksmashley said:
There won't be a revolution. Despite what the gun-toting hipsters think, America is not a dictatorship like lybia, or Egypt, you are not oppressed, and kept down by the "man" and you change your government every 4 years or whatever even if you do elect some absolute nightmares. Its not going to happen without a massive shift in the countries politics.
Heh, i had a massive argument on this R&P where i explained how a violent Syrian-style revolution won't happen in a liberal democratic country.
Anyway, in order to create the conditions for a violent revolution you need to destroy liberal-democratic values- that means destroying the American middle class by making a lot of people poor, desperate and angry and discrediting the democratic system. To do this you probably need drastic climatic changes and massive environmental catastrophe (i.e- Yellowstone erupts big style). I can't really envision any other way make Americans poor. Then you need an alternative ideology (in America, perhaps a Christian theocracy) to emerge as a tyrannical dictatorship which controls people through religion- and makes puts the word of the Bible above the constitution.
And if not everyone's happy with this and you get your American Spring, does anyone intervene? If a massive environmental disaster has occurred don't forget that other countries are also likely to be fucked as well so they wouldn't have the will or ability to intervene so don't expect any early intervention. In fact it's quite unlikely that there would be an intervention even after global recovery because of how powerful the US Navy is and also the logistical difficulties in invading American soil- you have to cross an ocean. China in a few decades time may have the ability to pull of a land-invasion of America, but unless China has turned democratic China won't be interested in overthrowing tyrannical regimes.
In order to trigger an armed intervention in America you would probably need the regime to invade Canada which would lead to NATO launching an operation to help the Canadians in what would no doubt be a bloody war. For that precise reason, it's unlikely an American dictatorship would invade Canada.
So essentially for a second American Revolution to occur, with an armed foreign intervention- you need a succession of incredibly unlikely events to occur.
Anyway, in order to create the conditions for a violent revolution you need to destroy liberal-democratic values- that means destroying the American middle class by making a lot of people poor, desperate and angry and discrediting the democratic system. To do this you probably need drastic climatic changes and massive environmental catastrophe (i.e- Yellowstone erupts big style). I can't really envision any other way make Americans poor. Then you need an alternative ideology (in America, perhaps a Christian theocracy) to emerge as a tyrannical dictatorship which controls people through religion- and makes puts the word of the Bible above the constitution.
And if not everyone's happy with this and you get your American Spring, does anyone intervene? If a massive environmental disaster has occurred don't forget that other countries are also likely to be fucked as well so they wouldn't have the will or ability to intervene so don't expect any early intervention. In fact it's quite unlikely that there would be an intervention even after global recovery because of how powerful the US Navy is and also the logistical difficulties in invading American soil- you have to cross an ocean. China in a few decades time may have the ability to pull of a land-invasion of America, but unless China has turned democratic China won't be interested in overthrowing tyrannical regimes.
In order to trigger an armed intervention in America you would probably need the regime to invade Canada which would lead to NATO launching an operation to help the Canadians in what would no doubt be a bloody war. For that precise reason, it's unlikely an American dictatorship would invade Canada.
So essentially for a second American Revolution to occur, with an armed foreign intervention- you need a succession of incredibly unlikely events to occur.