On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Ranma Al'Thor wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, frosty wrote:
At 07:42 PM 9/7/96 +1000, Caroline Ann Seawright wrote:
Thank Kamisama we won't end up like American with everyone and his dog
(or half of them) having guns ... Guns in the hands of a lot of people
mean that there's a greater change of morons getting guns, as well as
psychos and other such people who shouldn't be near a gun. This means
that here there will be a greater chance of morons and other such people
having their guns taken OFF them! Yay! Guns are only for criminals and
police and the military!
The philosopy is that if the people have guns, then an oppressive government
won't stand a chance in hell of existing, why?, 'cause we'll shoot them. If
Yeah, like that has ever worked in American history. Go read about
Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, or oh, the Civil War. An armed
citizenry doesn't have a chance in hell against organized military forces
with superior resources. Especially now, when the military has tanks.
Unless we all start carrying rocket launchers, there isn't much we could
do but die.
The field record of armed, but untrained citizenry against anything well
armed and disciplined sucks pretty hard.
It was indeed the philosophy behind the second amendment, but it didn't
work even then.
Yes...and no. Against a well-armed, loyal, and intelligent army, no,
there usually wouldn't be a smowball's chance in College Station.
But, now as then, Sun Tzu's words ring true: Know your enemy and know
yourself, and you will be successful in a hundred battles.
Case in point #1: Vietnam. The big, bad American army went in,
to protect the South Vietnam government, and were fought to a
standstill. Eventually forced out by pressures at home, the Americans
left the government to its fate. Why? Ho Chih Minh knew his enemy - the
unwillingness to take extreme, inhumane measures, the unpopularity of the
war at home, the comparatively extravagant measures taken to heal the
soldiers and the drain this put on resources. He used this to his full
advantage and won out, primarily because he could afford to wait.
Case in point #2: The American Civil War. By rights, that war should
have been over in months, rather than four years. The Union didn't know
themselves, or at least refused to recognize the facts about themselves.
They had superior manpower, superior equipment, and superior resources.
The only major advantages the Confederacy had were their home turf, an
unwillingness to give up, and the tenacity and inventiveness to do
things that Jomini (a military strategist in Napoleon's time; wrote the
definitive pre-Civil War strategy text) would have choked on his whiskey
to see. The South recognized some of their weaknesses (others, such as
the fragility of the Confederate structure, were never fully realized
until after), took them into account, and went on anyway. The result
was four years of bloody, agonizing conflict. Only once the Union
realized the numbers game and how to play it did the tide of the war
change; by forcing the Confederacy into bloodbath after bloodbath (i.e.
the Forty Days), the resources and manpower of the Confederacy dwindled
until there wasn't enough left to fight.
However, here's the "no". In each case, the resources of the "rebels"
were organized by some form of government. Ultimately, though, the
muscle behind these forces was the people at large.
So, what have we learned? In order to carry out a successful revolution,
bring your daily planner, your book on rhetoric, and find a bunch of
disgruntled, well-armed citizens. Also, know everything you can about
the strategy, customs, and resources of your opponent.
Baibai. I have some Urusai Yatsura to watch, to get me in a demented
mood, then a bit of Black Lemonade...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Leifker, aka "Nightelf"
nwl9354@tam2000.tamu.edu
"He's so beautiful when he's unconscious."
-Kodachi Kuno, "Kurobara"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------