Inspired by a quote from the great Thomas Jefferson... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jwells777 · 01-21-2004, 09:52 PM

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

So claimed one of the founding fathers and in their time civil disobedience was a viable resistance. Ultimately, this led to a revolution and the birth of a great nation. In today's day and age, has the military and police technology advanced to the point where such an uprising from the people would be virtually impossible? Would a modern revolution have to start from within military ranks? Further, do you think that those who participated in events such as the Boston Tea Party faced equally daunting odds against them as would someone trying to revolt against the U.S. government today?

My feelings are that the such a revolt would have to come from within the military. Despite the right to bear arms, even the organized civilian militia would be no match for the government. I personally feel that this is not necessarily a good thing; though, I certainly could not propose an adequate method for balancing power. Throughout history, I am sure that rising against the ruling powers such as Rome or the British Empire must have been a daunting task, but ultimately, doable. Today, I am not so sure that is a possibility.

Prince · 01-21-2004, 09:58 PM

Is the IRA an organized civilian militia?

I think it is unlikely that it'd be possible in normal circumstances, but after or in the midst of a great war I could see it happening, if it were to happen at all.

tritium · 01-21-2004, 10:01 PM

The FBI has logged your post and will be at your position in 15minutes. Please go along quietly.

jwells777 · 01-21-2004, 10:01 PM

I imagine that the IRA could be considered a militia; however, I was originally considering the question in the context of the U.S. It seems that the U.S. and perhaps have a handful of other countries have both technological superiority and extremely well trained standing armies unlike much of the rest of the world.

jwells777 · 01-21-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tritium
The FBI has logged your post and will be at your position in 15minutes. Please go along quietly.

LOL...Nah...they've already got me on speed dial. Had to check in after the post and let them know I wasn't going to do anything crazy.

tritium · 01-21-2004, 10:48 PM

You have no idea what numbers I've called ... found a PDF list on the internet and dialed a few thinking it was a joke AND ...
...
...
...
It wasn't. I might have --->**accidentally**<--- ... erm ... called the White House Situation Room at one point.

hklong741 · 01-22-2004, 08:38 AM

I don't believe that an independent military force within the country, with or without the existing Armed Forces support could do too much damage, or lead a revolution, but......

I "hope" the issue/reasons for the revolution would be boiled down to specific issues that would not be well decided by a war.
Our government still has some capacity to change policy, viewpoint, standing, whatever is the people wish it.

War is usually a political tool, not a true conclusion to an issue.

The desire to not have war, and to avoid wasting life should be the motivation to keep any reason for war in perspective. There will always be convincing arguments for and against any conflict, but it is doubtfull they would be meaningful during the battle.

It is a constant struggle which I am surprised our elected officials have not abused in greater scale.

But then I could be wrong..........

timalkin · 01-23-2004, 09:58 AM

You should just look at history books for the answers to this question. In the Civil War, the military had way more complex technology available to them than any civilian could own. The Southern states themselves decided to coordinate with each other to provide a united front against the enemy. A good portion of the U.S. military resigned, seized whatever military equipment they could, and opened the gates for their Southern buddies.

The biggest reason behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is for the people to have the ability to overthrow the government if it becomes necessary. In the worse case scenario, civilians could put up a stiff fight for any modern military force, just look at Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc.

Even if the odds were very much against the success of a civilian revolt, such a drastic situation that would cause a general revolt wouldn't be worth living in anyway.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

smooth · 01-24-2004, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by timalkin
You should just look at history books for the answers to this question. In the Civil War, the military had way more complex technology available to them than any civilian could own. The Southern states themselves decided to coordinate with each other to provide a united front against the enemy. A good portion of the U.S. military resigned, seized whatever military equipment they could, and opened the gates for their Southern buddies.

And we know the conclusion to that war, right?

Fire · 01-24-2004, 07:12 AM

also there was a much smaller gap between available military and civilian tech at the time of the U.S. civil war- in fact, due to budgetary reasons metalic cartriges, available to civies, were not widely used by either military- nowadays none of us has a personal abrams tank or F-14- it would fall down to guerilla actions, like we see now in iraq-and I still doubt that it could do enough damage to or make a big dent in the Gov'ment

Macheath · 01-24-2004, 07:44 AM

The military doesn't exist in a vaccum. Guerilla warfare is just as much about making the society that upholds the military question the situation. This also will lead other powers, other Governments to consider the idea of supporting the revolutionaries as the French did during the American revoutionary war.

Aside from this it is a matter of psychology; the revolutionary jailed for civil disobedience will believe in their cause to the extent that while they are jailed and broken in body, their spirit cannot be broken. The only way military technology could break this desire for freedom woud be if the Generals decided to just go and blow up the world and everyone in it.

Gortexfogg · 01-24-2004, 08:31 AM

Don't forget the non-violent means of revolution available. It would be possible to call another constitutional convention to create a whole new constitution and form of government. Of course, the only one ever called was in 1787 and that was the one that created our current government. It's not impossible though, there's been over a hundred attempts to start one over the years.

Crack · 01-24-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jwells777
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

Would a modern revolution have to start from within military ranks?

My feelings are that the such a revolt would have to come from within the military.

Cool, I'm in, when does the revolution start? How 'bout right after payday? My COLA ( http://www.military.com/Resources/Re...962--0,00.html )is going to be pretty nice this month...
either way.

wry1 · 01-27-2004, 08:34 PM

What seems to have been overlooked is that in the given example of the Revolutionary War, when the "Colonies" took on England, there was a multi-week time frame involved in shipping more troops, and for sending information back across the Atlantic. As a result, I would argue that the U.S. Civil War is a much better case study.

In regard to the Civil War, I would propose that both sides fielded large numbers of civilian soldiers, but that the "professional" military personnel were about evenly dispersed (at least, when it came to more experienced officers and non-coms). Each state involved had its own militia, composed primarily of the citizen-soldiers previously mentioned, and I would argue that it wasn't technology - but rather available supplies - that decided the outcome. When the "North" was able to secure a stockpile of saltpeter for their gunpowder-making efforts, the fate of the "South" was sealed.....

01-21-2004, 09:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
jwells777 Tilted	Inspired by a quote from the great Thomas Jefferson... If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it; he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson So claimed one of the founding fathers and in their time civil disobedience was a viable resistance. Ultimately, this led to a revolution and the birth of a great nation. In today's day and age, has the military and police technology advanced to the point where such an uprising from the people would be virtually impossible? Would a modern revolution have to start from within military ranks? Further, do you think that those who participated in events such as the Boston Tea Party faced equally daunting odds against them as would someone trying to revolt against the U.S. government today? My feelings are that the such a revolt would have to come from within the military. Despite the right to bear arms, even the organized civilian militia would be no match for the government. I personally feel that this is not necessarily a good thing; though, I certainly could not propose an adequate method for balancing power. Throughout history, I am sure that rising against the ruling powers such as Rome or the British Empire must have been a daunting task, but ultimately, doable. Today, I am not so sure that is a possibility.

01-21-2004, 09:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	Is the IRA an organized civilian militia? I think it is unlikely that it'd be possible in normal circumstances, but after or in the midst of a great war I could see it happening, if it were to happen at all. __________________ Who is John Galt?

01-21-2004, 10:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
tritium Professor of Drinkology	The FBI has logged your post and will be at your position in 15minutes. Please go along quietly. __________________ Blah.

01-21-2004, 10:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
tritium Professor of Drinkology	You have no idea what numbers I've called ... found a PDF list on the internet and dialed a few thinking it was a joke AND ... ... ... ... It wasn't. I might have --->accidentally<--- ... erm ... called the White House Situation Room at one point. __________________ Blah. Last edited by tritium; 01-21-2004 at 10:51 PM..

01-24-2004, 07:12 AM	#10 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	also there was a much smaller gap between available military and civilian tech at the time of the U.S. civil war- in fact, due to budgetary reasons metalic cartriges, available to civies, were not widely used by either military- nowadays none of us has a personal abrams tank or F-14- it would fall down to guerilla actions, like we see now in iraq-and I still doubt that it could do enough damage to or make a big dent in the Gov'ment __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

01-21-2004, 10:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
jwells777 Tilted	I imagine that the IRA could be considered a militia; however, I was originally considering the question in the context of the U.S. It seems that the U.S. and perhaps have a handful of other countries have both technological superiority and extremely well trained standing armies unlike much of the rest of the world.

01-22-2004, 08:38 AM	#7 (permalink)
hklong741 Upright Location: someplace cold and dark	I don't believe that an independent military force within the country, with or without the existing Armed Forces support could do too much damage, or lead a revolution, but...... I "hope" the issue/reasons for the revolution would be boiled down to specific issues that would not be well decided by a war. Our government still has some capacity to change policy, viewpoint, standing, whatever is the people wish it. War is usually a political tool, not a true conclusion to an issue. The desire to not have war, and to avoid wasting life should be the motivation to keep any reason for war in perspective. There will always be convincing arguments for and against any conflict, but it is doubtfull they would be meaningful during the battle. It is a constant struggle which I am surprised our elected officials have not abused in greater scale. But then I could be wrong..........

01-23-2004, 09:58 AM	#8 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	You should just look at history books for the answers to this question. In the Civil War, the military had way more complex technology available to them than any civilian could own. The Southern states themselves decided to coordinate with each other to provide a united front against the enemy. A good portion of the U.S. military resigned, seized whatever military equipment they could, and opened the gates for their Southern buddies. The biggest reason behind the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is for the people to have the ability to overthrow the government if it becomes necessary. In the worse case scenario, civilians could put up a stiff fight for any modern military force, just look at Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, etc. Even if the odds were very much against the success of a civilian revolt, such a drastic situation that would cause a general revolt wouldn't be worth living in anyway. "Give me liberty or give me death!"

01-24-2004, 07:44 AM	#11 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	The military doesn't exist in a vaccum. Guerilla warfare is just as much about making the society that upholds the military question the situation. This also will lead other powers, other Governments to consider the idea of supporting the revolutionaries as the French did during the American revoutionary war. Aside from this it is a matter of psychology; the revolutionary jailed for civil disobedience will believe in their cause to the extent that while they are jailed and broken in body, their spirit cannot be broken. The only way military technology could break this desire for freedom woud be if the Generals decided to just go and blow up the world and everyone in it.

01-24-2004, 08:31 AM	#12 (permalink)
Gortexfogg I and I Location: Stillwater, OK	Don't forget the non-violent means of revolution available. It would be possible to call another constitutional convention to create a whole new constitution and form of government. Of course, the only one ever called was in 1787 and that was the one that created our current government. It's not impossible though, there's been over a hundred attempts to start one over the years.

01-27-2004, 08:34 PM	#14 (permalink)
wry1 Loser Location: Far too far from my Angel....	What seems to have been overlooked is that in the given example of the Revolutionary War, when the "Colonies" took on England, there was a multi-week time frame involved in shipping more troops, and for sending information back across the Atlantic. As a result, I would argue that the U.S. Civil War is a much better case study. In regard to the Civil War, I would propose that both sides fielded large numbers of civilian soldiers, but that the "professional" military personnel were about evenly dispersed (at least, when it came to more experienced officers and non-coms). Each state involved had its own militia, composed primarily of the citizen-soldiers previously mentioned, and I would argue that it wasn't technology - but rather available supplies - that decided the outcome. When the "North" was able to secure a stockpile of saltpeter for their gunpowder-making efforts, the fate of the "South" was sealed.....