I disagree with your disagreement. The USSR is a terrible example because that’s not at all what happened there. When the USSR fell, it was largely because of a disastrously poor economy that was being hugely mismanaged, coupled with policies of Glasnost introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev that allowed free and open reporting and debate that unintentionally weakened the Communist Party and strengthened democratic opposition. It wasn’t because of “sustained guerilla operations”.
Your other three examples are oversimplified because there were multiple reasons for the failures of US and Soviet invaders, but the single most important factor – most spectacularly in Vietnam – was a highly unified opposition to the American invaders. A better example would be Hitler and Nazi Germany. How successful was opposition or uprisings against the Nazi regime?
Any insurgency in the US against an authoritarian regime would not only face the might of the US military, it would also be divided, much along the same lines as politics is today. It would be much more likely to turn into a bloody civil war.
That’s just ridiculous, especially if the US was still a member of NATO! In any case, that’s not what NATO does – it’s essentially a defensive alliance. Any action it might take would have to be based on tangible threats to NATO members.
The talk was about rifles and handguns kept by American citizens in their homes, not guerilla wars with better-equipped insurgents. The U.S. lost over 5,000 helicopters and 3,700 fixed wing aircraft in the Vietnam War. The combat losses weren’t to Saturday night specials, target .22s, deer rifles or even the occasional bump-stock AR-15.
It was a factor though, the war helped drive the economy down when it was already struggling.
I’m not saying NATO themselves would support an insurgency, I’m saying the individual nations would. NATO does not benefit from a right wing, pro-Putin dictatorship in the US. That is against their national interests, so they would support an insurgency to bring down a pro-Putin dictatorship in the US.
They wouldn’t use official NATO channels, there would be a lot of back channels, third parties and plausible deniability to provide weapons, training, intelligence, logistics and funding to an insurgency. The idea that nations that are under threat by Putin would passively accept a pro-Putin dictatorship in the US is not something I see happening.
Yeah but about 40% of the military members who vote, vote democratic. Also the military is about half made up of women and POC who may not be as supportive of a white supremacist patriarchy.
Also explosives can be a major factor in insurgency, not just small arms. Explosives and drones can do a lot of damage.
And again, European allies who do not want a pro-Putin dictatorship would be providing aid through deniable channels to an insurgency.
Before dicussing military tactics and weaponry, there’s an issue here which we need to define: what is this "authoritarian " government actually doing, which might cause the public to start a revolution with their pistols and hunting rifles?
The most realistic scenario is what I bolded in Horatius’s post…stealing the election in November, or in 2028. And that won’t be done by tanks in the streets, like the sovierts did to Hungary 1956. It will be a quiet, administrative issue, like Trump’s famous phone call to the election official in Georgia, saying “find me 11,000 more votes”.
The election in 2028 will be close, and everybody is worried that the Maga candidate will win legitimately.
So even if the election is stolen, it will only be by cheating with 1 or 2 percent of the vote in a few crucial precincts. So 49 percent of the country will be totally happy. Of the 51 per cent who voted Dem, most will not be deeply involved in politics..they will simply go to work as usual and get on with daily life. Maybe 5 percent will scream and protest. But that’s not enough to start a revolution.
To start a revolution against an authoritarian government in modern America, it would be necessary for the average citizen to experience real, painful suffering in his daily life. Bread lines, food shortages, empty pumps at the gas station. And that won’t happen just because Maga stole the election.
Most importantly, actually effective guerrillas rely on bombs; not guns. Guerrillas trying to shoot it out with an an actual military just get slaughtered, the competent ones use bombs so that the better armed and organized military force can’t shoot back at them, because they aren’t there.
Much of the point of pushing “guns” as the means to resist an oppressive government is that it doesn’t work, IMHO. That’s why it’s pushed by the authoritarians; if guns actually worked for that, the Republicans would be anti-gun. That, and it means their future death squads are armed and ready to massacre civilians.
One benefit of Trump is that he isn’t capable of doing things subtly. If he truly became dictator, he’d do it in a way that was blared out loud obvious, which is (slightly) likelier to trigger resistance rise-up.
It would be a skillful fascist who could subtly and quietly engineer an authoritarian regime, one that still looks like a democracy but in practice is rigged 1-party power rule, that would be more dangerous.
And it also conditions the mind of that segment of the public into a kind of tautological view that as long as no one’s showing up at their door to seize their guns, there’s no real oppression to resist.
(And to a great degree, gleaned from their own expressions especially back in 2020, many of that demographic weren’t so much thinking of a standoff against the state in case of revolt, as of a standoff against those revolting, who they already presume will be a thug mob coming to pillage)
Guns are highly effective against unarmed people though, thats why so many dictatorships have a disarmed public but paramilitary groups armed with small arms. Attempting to get small arms to anti-government insurgents in Iran would allow the people there to shoot back at the Basij and IRGC paramilitants armed with assault rifles.
I do agree that explosives are the true power of an insurgency. In Vietnam, booby traps were also popular. Explosives (either stationary or carried by drones) seems to work pretty well.
It makes no real difference, however. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq didn’t bother to restrict gun ownership, and was never threatened by it or reluctant to kill people.
Smuggling guns to Iranian insurgents would just result in a lot of dead insurgents and a stronger Iranian government.
The OP is likely true. Americans are extremely coddled, ignorant, complacent, brainwashed, housebroken, etc. Fascist death squads could be dragging people out their houses off to some horrible fate and the average opposition response would be sassy tweets, SNL skits and waving goofy signs around a town square for a week and then going home.
Insurgents are dying in Iran anyway. Also the Kurds having weapons is one of the reasons that they established some independence from Saddam Hussein. Also in Iraq they did have gun control, and weapons were meant to be owned by Sunni arabs since they supported the regime. They wanted to crack down on gun ownership by Kurds and Shia but couldn’t. Arming regime supporters and disarming everyone else is a common tactic in authoritarian regimes.
There is a reason some black people in the south under Jim Crow talked about how important black gun ownership was. Because guns were their only defense against armed white supremacists. Armed black veterans of WW2 and the Korean war provided protection and security for civil rights activists in the south against the KKK and police.
Good question, and I’d like to see @Wesley_Clark answer it.
I believe the answer is what I said before – that’s just not what NATO does – it’s a defensive alliance. NATO would act if Russia invaded Poland or Finland. It’s also why Putin is demanding assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO in the future. They can’t right now because NATO is in a sense a form of insurance, and you can’t buy fire insurance while your house is burning down.