Realistically?
Not without external assistance.
The issue would be the key…
Partly because the military oath is to “support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” A constitutional issue could split the military and provide a well trained cadre to an insurgency.
That insurgency word is the other part on why the political issue is so important. Insurgencies turn on the ability of the counter-insurgent to develop assent to the rule of government among the populace. It’s not simply a matter of battlefield calculus comparing strength of fighting forces.
A political issue that wasn’t universally supported by the military, prompted the majority of Americans to tacitly support the insurgents, and the government didn’t deal well with it… sure an overthrow is possible.
Like, from Texas?
I’ve heard people claim that the US government could not realistically hold the territory of the US against a substantial portion of the population without a draft–that there just wouldn’t be enough soldiers to occupy even a small portion of the country. I suppose the answer is a matter of degree–that if there was an issue strong enough, something that really united the entire spectrum of political thought in America, a successful rebellion would be possible.
What if 10 percent of Americans believed that the gov is corrupt and exploiting the poor, and decided to riot? Can the government stand?
Is this 10% randomly selected from the population at large? Then no. If they’re the poorest 10%, certainly not. If they’re active servicemembers, veterans, law enforcement, and the monied elite, sure, probably.
Under any remotely realistic circumstance in the forseeable future, no.
I would say so. Rioters aren’t going to be well organized and they’re probably less likely to contain members of the military and law enforcement. So it would essentially be a civil war with the government side having an advantage in both numbers and organization.
Ten percent of the population could conceivably overthrow the government but only if they were well organized and had control of the right ten percent. In such a case, it would be more like a coup d’etat.
I’m just so confused. In some countries, it seems to work. I’m confused about HOW.
I mean… Why would the monied elite revolt? If that’s what it takes, then the answer is no… It’s not possible.
I had this similar discussion with a vet friend of mine. I basically stated that the military would be able to put down any insurrection and would probably do so without much remorse. He countered that there was no way the military would acquiesce to firing on American citizens.
Him: “After all, when has the government ever gone on a rampage against it’s own citizens?”
Me: “You mean like Waco and Ruby Ridge?”
Him: “Ah, but that was the Feds, not the military”
Me: “You mean like at Kent State?”
Him: “No no, that was the National Guard, not the military”
Me: “You mean like with the Bonus Army?”
Him: “Hey look, the enchiladas are here…”
I really think it would be hard to get enough of the population to uprise to seem like a popular insurrection (bread and circuses, and all that), but the military has put down insurrections in the US before, and with the technological advantage they have now, they would have an even easier time of doing it again.
I don’t think it’s about their weapon power. I think it’s about whether or not a government can function with a sizable chunk of citizens in revolt.
American exceptionalism. No, really. Well, almost. This would be true of most 1st world, industrialized nations like the US, Canada, GB, France, Germany… Not with 10% of the populace. Why would you think that 10% could conquer the 90%, especially when the 90% has to police and military on their side? If you had the military an police on the anti- side, then you’d have much more than 10% of the populace on your side.
John I got that idea in my head wrongly, I think. I didn’t consider western governments being different than the ones that have toppled in the Middle East. I know they didn’t need a large percentage of rebels.
The difference is that the US government probably has the support of +99% of the US population, as compared to a hypothetical rebel group. In particular, the government has extremely strong support among people who matter: the military, law enforcement, thought leaders, and rich people. Governments in the Middle East are often not supported beyond people who are directly or indirectly receiving patronage, and thus are much more susceptible to rebel groups.
Ah. I think shit is starting to make sense now. I keep trying to hit “like” on posts… Facebook addiction. But what in saying is, thanks for the feedback.
It is also in the federal civilian oath. The bureaucracy would do its part and tie up the insurgency in red tape, without firing a shot.
Keep in mind that other countries are mostly, really small. 10% of the US population is not a lot of people. They could probably take a state or two, if they concentrate, but the whole country, all at once? Pretty unlikely, especially if they’re trying to hold the territory.
I mean, 10% of the US population is 33,000,000 million people. For comparison, the population of California is 38,000,000.
Besides, we already have revolution built into the system. It makes way more sense to spend the money on votes than on war.
The traditional answer is:
A successful revolution can occur if:
1/3 actively support the revolution
1/3 actively oppose
1/3 don’t care.
How modern fighting tools and techniques alter this, I don’t know.
If all the various loons taking about some right-wing takeover could ever agree, there could be a nasty fight.
My money is on: They’d lose.And lose quickly, if the US military were to attack, not just defend.