ok to just shoot people now apparently

[tw]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

War and rules of engagement have always seemed contradictory

Which is the philosophy of General Curtis LeMay. If only two Americans survive and only on Soviet survives, then we win. Learn the purpose of war long before making conclusions from a soundbite or an emotion.

Only an enlisted man thinks the purpose of war is killing. An example of one who is not officer material.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

This is Mr. Clod's opinion as well, and it seems utterly bizarre to me. I don't find it hard to imagine AT ALL. Enforcers in every city are firing on Americans right now, just ones they've deemed destructive criminals. Yeah, they're not going to march into your suburban house and slaughter you on your couch--but if they think you're with "the other side?" Or if they think your house is secretly a resistance base and needs to be targeted? Soldiers will absolutely fire on people they no longer consider to be Americans.

I think there's an important difference between the average cop and the average soldier, and an even bigger one between the average, say, CBP thug in riot gear gassing protesters and the average soldier. I've seen plenty of interviews with guardsmen being like "nothing is more demoralizing than when I got deployed against rioters asking me why I'm here, what I'm doing, why I would do this to Americans". I'm......... not exactly someone with a high opinion of soldiers, but they mostly signed up to go kill and oppress foreigners, not other Americans. I think we will see a split between the, large contingent of right-wing agitators in the military that people have been warning about for a long time, the white supremacists and dominionists, and the.. soldiers who are less cool with taking over the country. effectively, my prediction is that like, a third of the military will desert and form right-wing militias, a third will desert cause they don't wanna, like, shoot their neighbors, and a third will remain, with a military leadership that, I think, would be more likely to either sit things out or act as a "peacekeeping" force nominally unaligned with the Partisans? obviously there's a lot of ways things could go and this is all just me guessing but I do not think that the military is loyal to Trump the way that, say, the Syrian military is loyal to Assad. I have trouble imagining a scenario where the military itself is a major combatant. maybe there's a timeline where, like, Trump has "been declared" the winner and there's an organized enough insurgency that he calls in the military and they do it but i fell like things are likely to be less straightforward than than.

[Clodfobble]

But if sides are being taken, is the average soldier going to be more, or less, comfortable shooting a CBP agent compared to a civilian of unknown motives? Some will desert, I agree--a good percentage of cops have already resigned in the past few months--but I don't think any of them are going to take a stand against anybody in a uniform.

[Flint]

Remember, protestors are Antifa, and Antifa are terrorists. The US military has already been doing urban warfare against civilian terrorists for a long time.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But if sides are being taken, is the average soldier going to be more, or less, comfortable shooting a CBP agent compared to a civilian of unknown motives? Some will desert, I agree--a good percentage of cops have already resigned in the past few months--but I don't think any of them are going to take a stand against anybody in a uniform.

oh, 100%. The military will only be used against civilians, not rogue agents of a "hypothetical" fascist state. If the military does get involved, it will be to crush "dissidents" and, as flint says, kill people the government - whatever the hell that looks like - say are malefactors. but my guess is that its a little more likely that the military will splinter into Just More Militias rather than The Military Versus The People Of The United States. there's a lot of variables - violence after a narrow Biden victory is upheld by the courts looks different than violence after a narrow Biden victory is overturned by the courts looks different than violence after a narrow Trump victory is upheld by the courts looks different than violence after a narrow Trump victory is overturned by the courts, etc. also, listening to what folks who lived through recent unrest/revolutions in places like Ukraine and Syria and Libya have said about their experiences, i don't expect us to wake up and be like "oh there's a civil war happening now" - it'll just be slowly escalating violence until its militias holding territory and cities defending themselves from federal goon squads or rioting demonstrators or whatever.
and again, i sure fucking hope i'm wrong!!!!! i would LOVE to be wrong. because if i'm right and there is a shooting war (more than, like, there already is), a lot of my friends are going to die. i'm probably going to die. even if i don't stand up for my community and like, be on the front lines, between my health issues and my identity, i've got a pretty bad chance of coming through things fine. but from where I sit the opportunity to turn back the tide of violence seems to be slipping away. and thats unbelievably scary.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Ibby

... If the military does get involved, it will be to crush "dissidents" and, as flint says, kill people the government - whatever the hell that looks like - say are malefactors. ...

The military will essentially follow these guidelines:

Insurrection Act of 1807

Posse Comitatus Act

To do otherwise (like breaking apart) would leave the country open to attack by foreign powers which would be contrary to our military personnel's raison d'être.

There can be worse things than civil war.

[Ibby]

which is why i don't think the brass would, like, follow orders if ordered to deploy the military directly. though, i should clarify that i was also kinda lumping the national guard in with the military there. i think it'll be complicated, but i find it hard to believe that actual military units will be deploying against americans.

ex-military militias with stolen weapons, maybe, but...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Ibby

... ex-military militias with stolen weapons, maybe, but...

Law enforcement can generally handle them; but if not, the Governor's of some States (and of course the President) have something most people aren't aware of... there's a decentralized National Guard Special Forces unit (a.k.a. Green Berets). It has combat experience and is trained in both insurgency and counter-insurgency operations.

[Ibby]

i mean, the sort of, worst-case scenario i'm talking about is, like, assuming things get past where law enforcement can handle them. if things got to the point of open conflict, etc.
its completely fair if you think things could never, ever get that bad and i hope you're right but i'm increasingly convinced that that's not outside the realm of possibility in the near future.

(there's also a whole other conversation to be had about, how much certain types of law enforcement looks the other way or tacitly approves of certain types of militias as opposed to others, but thats a whole nother ball of wax)

[sexobon]

From my first link:

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard:

● to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights.

If the situation gets beyond law enforcement's ability to control, the military would intervene to protect "Constitutionally-secured rights."

The Law of Land Warfare would apply:

--The laws of war are the rules respecting war- fare with which, according to international law, belligerents and neutrals are bound to comply. ' The rules of land warfare had their origin in the practices and usages of war which gradually grew into customs or were embodied in conventions.

The only real concern I see would be a President who wouldn't stop belligerence from escalating beyond law enforcements ability to contain it. That hasn't happened so far. Are you having reservations about Biden being willing to do that if he's elected?

[Ibby]

and, again, my assertion is that, i think the military is more likely to fracture than to actually be used to effectively "address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy".

And you and I clearly disagree on whether or not violence is likely to escalate past law enforcement's ability to contain it, mostly because I think law enforcement is part of the problem rather than a solution. I don't wanna derail this whole thread arguing for police abolition, but you and i clearly don't agree on whether law enforcement is more likely to quell or inflame violence.

and, yes, i abso-fucking-lutely have questions about Biden's ability to quell belligerence. And Trump's. But I also have questions about any president's ability, not willingness, to do that. My worry is that things are past the point where enough of the country will consider the election valid, no matter who wins. its not inevitable but i don't think that any of the people or groups who could avert things are likely to actually do so.

(and if the election happens and its all smooth and everything goes back to the status quo and violence stops and things are just fine i will absolutely love to hear your i-told-you-sos! i am not rooting for violence and i will be so relieved if it does not occur!)

[Ibby]

basically: its fine if you think that the existing institutions of government, law enforcement, and military power are sufficient to prevent widespread violence! you might be right! but i think the ongoing and worsening crisis could overwhelm and degrade those institutions a lot more easily than you expect.

[Undertoad]

people never figure they'll be shot by their own side

but it took like a week until CHAZ/CHOP devolved to the point where insiders were getting shot

when you fight authority, new authority appears. it is inevitable. it is built in

good luck

[sexobon]

I think all of those can quite easily become compromised, just not to the extent where chaos rules. I've been trained to overthrow government and its institutions using unconventional warfare, auxiliaries and undergrounds. It's not so easy. It still takes the development of conventional forces to go up against a conventional military and achieve any kind of meaningful victory (as in you may win some battles; but, lose the war). Most people instinctively want to be on the winning side. The military will remain largely intact.

My perspective comes from having worked in Special Forces Operations & Intelligence, having seen situations in this country much worse than what we're experiencing now, and a front end analysis that shows insufficient domestic support for successful insurgencies (Chicken Littles notwithstanding).
.
.

[Ibby]

i wanna be real clear that its not like i'm trying to say there's absolutely going to be an outright shooting war, though i definitely think it's possible, but i think rapidly escalating sectarian violence is already pretty clearly occurring. You think its unlikely to escalate too far, but I would argue it has steadily escalated for years. mass shootings, vehicle attacks, bombings, attacks on synagogues and mosques and gay bars (and police stations and ICE facilities and)
and i think that things are poised to escalate extremely quickly. tensions are incredibly high, unemployment is staggering, millions of people are at risk of eviction, a plague is killing hundreds of thousands while millions accuse the government of letting people die and millions think its basically a hoax, faith in the election is extremely low, people riot in the streets of american cities while police continue to murder with all-too-frequent immunity........ i could go on, but i think there's a lot of fuel for the fire if enough sparks catch. I don't think the US is somehow more immune to the prospect of widespread unrest and violence than the rest of the world, when faced with comparable crises.