If The Iranian Protesters Had RKBA

[tucsonlib]

Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio said today,

"I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours."


Undoubtedly true. But what do you think the outcome would have been?

[Taverner]

1. I'm going with slaughter - sure they might have taken down a few cops

But in the end, the cops and the militias have the guns

[ZombieHorde]

2. Other, I don't know, but interesting thought. nt

[Ikonoklast]

3. Bloodbath.

With the protesters getting the short end.

An armed mass of amateurs against a trained para-military police force?

Slaughter.



Take an equal number of the most highly-skilled handlers of firearms in this country, and put them up against a trained division of Regular Army.

I bet on the Army.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Equal number?

Seriously, you think there's a 1:1 ratio of dissaffected protesters in Iran, to Iranian military, or state-loyal security forces? Actual ratio would be greater than 10:1, civilians to state-loyal security.

Also, Iran has conscription, all able-bodied men spend about a year and a half in the military, so they have training in excess of joe schmoe here in the US.


I ticked 'other' in the survey, because it would be very bloody, but I think the people might win. Iran has somewhat of a history of discarding Governments. Also, the argument is fallacious, the Iranian people HAVE weapons, IIRC. The Iraqi people certainly did, weapons far in excess of what is available to civilians in the US. Presence of weapons in the hands of civilians is insufficient catalyst for a revolution, by itself.

[Ikonoklast]

6. Yes.

A trained military force using street-fighting house-to-house tactics would overcome an untrained non-professional armed mob.

They would be disciplined with chain-of-command and unit cohesion.

I would not lead a numerically superior amateur force against trained regular army. It would be suicide.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. 10 irregular troops against 1 regular troop is an unpleasant scenario for either side.

I won't say the irregular resistance WOULD win, but certainly COULD.

10 to 1 is shitty odds, in house to house urban warfare. Unless the '1' is willing to literally lay entire cities to waste, in the process of fighting.

[Ikonoklast]

9. Superior tactics and command can overcome numbers.

It was NATO strategy defending West Germany against another professional army of vastly superior numbers for forty years.

You need to remember the logistics involved, the movement of ammunition and resupply. You could fight a larger force in a defensive manner, making them use up all their ammunition, while yours is still being brought up.

Then it would be a rout.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. A little overconfident, I think.

Using conventional weapons, had the Soviets pressed home the fight, NATO only had enough ammo on hand to fight for what, one month? Two at best? Using conventional weapons, you really can't plug that hole.

In either case, it's a useless comparison, since neither side was willing to test the other, so we can never know which would have won. It's as much of a hypothetical as what we have in Iran right now.



There are certainly force multipliers in combat, but even with the BEST equipment, training and logistics, if 10 guys get together and try to kill you with even something as archaic as mosin-nagant's, you're in deep shit.

That scales just fine with 10 american soldiers with FCS gear, body armor, and new rifles against 100 guys in a city with mosin-nagants. Deep, deep shit. Especially if you have to go to them, and not the other way around. Numerical superiority is a major problem when looking at what would amount to forceful occupation. Afghanistan didn't go well for Soviet Russia. Iraq didn't go so good for us either. Afghanistan is still smouldering for us today, 7 years on.

[Ikonoklast]

12. But we are still in Afghanistan.

A small force relative to the population, and they haven't run us out.

Their only hope is attrition and waiting for public opinion to turn.

Iraq is another matter. For the amount of casualties involved, we did topple the regime and change the government.
Not saying what we did was legal or moral, but there is now a different political reality because of a small force relative to population.


I think the jury is still out on Iraq, as there are factions still trying to wait us out. I understand why President Obama wants a gradual draw-down of troops; if we left all at once like many here advocated the civil was would have erupted the next day. The power vacuum would have been filled instantly.

And we would be the ones responsible for the slaughter.

[rrneck]

14. As far as I'm concerned

we lost, and lost big.

http://costofwar.com/

[tucsonlib]

11. Re: Superior tactics and command can overcome numbers

Not to mention tanks, ground-attack aircraft, shoulder-fired missiles, flame throwers and all those other game-ending gadgets you're not likely to find stashed in a basement gun safe.....

[spin]

22. True, but often an army resists killing their own countries citizens...

especially if they feel the protests are legitimate.

When you ask an army to mow down their own countrymen, you take the chance that they will remove you and your friends from office.

[tucsonlib]

30. You Mean Like At Kent State?

And those protesters were unarmed. "Often"? Maybe it's happened, but I can't think of a single incident anywhere in the world where the military refused an order to fire.

[spin]

31. Right off, Tiananmen Square comes to mind...

Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the People's Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. The 27th Army was led by a commander related to Yang Shangkun. In a press conference, US President George H. W. Bush announced sanctions on the People's Republic of China, following calls to action from members of Congress such as US Senator Jesse Helms. The President suggested intelligence he had received indicated some disunity in China's military ranks, and even the possibility of clashes within the military during those days. Intelligence reports also indicated that 27th and 28th units were brought in from outside provinces because the local PLA were considered to be sympathetic to the protest and to the people of the city. Reporters described elements of the 27th as having been most responsible for civilian deaths. After their attack on the square, the 27th reportedly established defensive positions in Beijing - not of the sort designed to counter a civilian uprising, but as if to defend against attacks by other military units. emphasis mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

[tucsonlib]

34. That's One....Sorta

But with a death toll estimated to have been in the thousands, there were apparently a large number of troops more than willing to fire on their own countrymen. That all ya got?
Off the top of my head, I can think of half-a-dozen incidents in this country alone when the military slaughtered unarmed Americans without hesitation.

[spin]

36. Sure, the fall of the Soviet Union...

Finally, the situation came to a head in August of 1991. In a last-ditch effort to save the Soviet Union, which was floundering under the impact of the political movements which had emerged since the implementation of Gorbachev's glasnost, a group of "hard-line" Communists organized a coup d'etat. They kidnapped Gorbachev, and then, on August 19 of 1991, they announced on state television that Gorbachev was very ill and would no longer be able to govern. The country went into an uproar. Massive protests were staged in Moscow, Leningrad, and many of the other major cities of the Soviet Union. When the coup organizers tried to bring in the military to quell the protestors, the soldiers themselves rebelled, saying that they could not fire on their fellow countrymen. After three days of massive protest, the coup organizers surrendered, realizing that without the cooperation of the military, they did not have the power to overcome the power of the entire population of the country.

emphasis mine
http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp

Also Madagascar

Madagascar: Troops defy orders to put down opposition protests
By Fred Weston Thursday, 12 March 2009


We no longer take orders from our hierarchy, we are following our hearts. We were trained to protect property and citizens, not to fire at people. We are with the people," one rebel soldier is reported as saying.
Anti-government protestors in the capital of Madagascar, Antananarivo. Photo by IRIN.
Anti-government protestors in the capital of Madagascar, Antananarivo. Photo by IRIN.

On Sunday the depth of the crisis and the level of social discontent in Madagascar directly affected a group of soldiers of the Army Corps of Personnel and Administrative and Technical Services who had been ordered to move against protestors on the streets. The soldiers refused to obey orders to fire on the people and repress anti-government demonstrators. Following this, they then declared they would not obey government orders either.
http://www.marxist.com/madagascar-troops-defy-orders.htm

I understand your argument that U.S. troops have often fired on our own citizens. We have never had an incident where the majority of people in this country were so inflamed by the policies of the government that they took to the streets with the intention of either overturning an election or overthrowing the government.

When an army feels the citizens have very reasonable grievances and the army itself has a majority of soldiers who agree with those marching in protest, than a tyrant can find the army will refuse to follow orders. In our history we haven't had that occurrence.

[Deadric Damodred]

15. Unless the government is willing to bomb it's own cities...

...I think you are way understimating what millions of united gun owners could stand up against. One untrained punk, in Philly, killed three police officers; and that was just one stupid kid with no training. Think of what millions of armed civilians that are proficient in their firearms could do. I'm not saying the civilians would win, but if you think it would be a complete domination by the police & military, I think you may want to think things through a bit more.

[tucsonlib]

16. Re: I'm not saying the civilians would win

So, let me try to understand. You concede that the civilians would still likely lose, but that the kill ratio wouldn't be as one-sided as the earlier comment suggests?

I've thought it through, and I agree with you - If the civilians had been armed, casualties on both sides would have numbered in the thousands. And the outcome would have likely been the same. Except, of course, for the unnecessary and avoidable carnage.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. He didn't say 'likely lose'

It's a possibility, not a certainty. It is improper to use absolutes in these sorts of hypothetical questions.

[jeepnstein]

29. Our government has dropped bombs...

on it's own citizens. I have no doubt they'd do it again if they thought there was money in it.

[madeline_con]

24. Isn't a "numerically superior amateur force" giving our troops a run for their $ in Iraq?

How would the same thing not happen in Iran?

[Irreverend IX]

26. If the rebels tried a simple frontal attack it would be a slaughter.

But if one in 10 rebels had scoped rifles and sat in their houses waiting for an opportunity to snipe a basiji it would be much different. How do you maintain control of a city when there are large areas no police dare to enter? How could Ahmadinejad's forces round up dissidents if they knew they had better than 30% odds of being shot every time they kicked in someone's door? The only way to eliminate that kind of insurrection would be to bomb the rebel-held areas flat, kill thousands of noncombatants and stoke the fires of resistance even hotter.

The whole point of being an irregular combatant is not fighting fair.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Other: My thoughts. . .

It would depend a lot on how it was fought. If people with AK's attempted to storm buildings I think the potential for a blood bath would be high. If the people fought this in a smart way and executed a sniper campaign then the Government would have it's hands very full and might be forced to back down.

[davepc]

7. a police and military who are hesitant to attack unarmed protestors might not have such restraint

if the protesters are shooting at them.

[spin]

21. Or they might have even more restraint...

if they knew the peaceful protesters could shoot at them.

[rrneck]

13. Other

Of course, if they had a second admendment they would probably have a better government generally, so the whole problem would be averted (hopefully)

Bullies don't like anything approaching even odds.

[gorfle]

17. I said other.

I said other. From the pictures I have seen thus far, the crowds far outnumber the riot police. If those were armed crowds it would be serious trouble for anyone trying to contain them.

Unfortunately, uncoordinated crowds are mobs. They have no command and communications structure to organize their maneuvers, either to exploit enemy weaknesses or coordinate defenses. But a mob of pissed off, armed citizenry can wreak havoc - look at Mogadishu.

In the end, civil wars are horribly destructive regardless of who wins.

I hope they can overcome peaceably.

[iverglas]

18. Hmm. USAmericans have "RKBA"

... and yet ... 2004 ...



Perhaps to clarify: having the right to do something doesn't mean that anyone in particular will do it (in this instance, possess firearms), and having things doesn't mean that a people will collectively decide to use them (in this instance, resort to violence to settle a political dispute).

[gorfle]

41. Do you..

Do you equate believe the problems with the American election in 2004 are equivalent in terms of fraud with the current elections in Iran?

[iverglas]

46. "equivalent in terms of fraud"?

How about equivalent in terms of effect?

If we assume that a Democratic administration would have put an end to the Iraq war now, and maybe done something about climate change, and provided some people in the US with health care, and maybe even brought a little regulation to the economy, well I think a lot of people (including a bunch of dead people outside your borders) might just think so.

A stolen election is a stolen election, really.

[gorfle]

47. Really?

How about equivalent in terms of effect?

If we assume that a Democratic administration would have put an end to the Iraq war now, and maybe done something about climate change, and provided some people in the US with health care, and maybe even brought a little regulation to the economy, well I think a lot of people (including a bunch of dead people outside your borders) might just think so.

A stolen election is a stolen election, really.

Really? Because to me, in terms of the scale of the fraud being perpetrated, what is happening in Iraq seems far, far worse than what happened here in the US. In fact, after reviewing the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies ) I'm not even convinced that the 2004 election was stolen. I think there were shenanigans being played by both sides, as in all elections, and because US votes have been so close recently any maneuver can give the slightest edge to one side or the other, which then makes the other side cry foul, whether the maneuver was legitimate or not.

In Iran, on the other hand, the voting results that I've seen are absolutely preposterous and not even remotely plausible. And of course there appears to be no impartial rule of law to sort out the mess one way or the other.

So in terms of who would be closer to armed rebellion, I'd have to put that in Iraq's corner for sure. Certainly their public protests seem to be more violent and more populated than anything I remember happening here.

I never contemplated taking up arms in 2004 (but then I was voting Republican then so why would I?). But if what happened in Iran happened here...

[spin]

19. I believe that if they had a 2nd Amendment, that alone would have...

prevented the tyranny that led to the current situation.

The government might have rigged the election, but they would have been very careful not to be obvious. It would have taken days to count the vote and the results would have been close.

Also the regimes thugs, the Basij, Iran's volunteer paramilitary group, would have had much less opportunity to bully people. It's fun to beat people up, it's no fun when the person you are beating half to death with a club pulls a .45 auto and ruins your entire day.

If you desire to run a totalitarian government, it is essential that you disarm the people.

[provis99]

20. well, we allowed each Iraqi household a machine gun after Saddam fell.

That worked out right good for them and us, didn't it? Sometimes the one-dimensional stupidity on the gun forum staggers the imagination.

[gorfle]

42. What was stupid about it?

I think it's working out great. The Iraqi people have the means to throw out their invaders, and they are succeeding.

[jgraz]

23. Not only would it have been a slaughter...

but most of the world would have been OK with it.

Instead of the "Iranian Crackdown" it would have been the "Iranian Civil War". Losers in a civil war are much less sympathetic than victims of a government crackdown.

[slackmaster]

27. Other - Unknown and unknowable

The question is irrelevant.

[jeepnstein]

28. They're doing it just right...

As far as I'm concerned the opposition is doing quite nicely. They may still very well pull off an upset victory. We'll see how they were prepared for the eventual crackdown. If the opposition has a plan other than mass protests in the street they could still very well be rolling forward.

Having arms is great, but it doesn't guarantee that you can achieve your political goals. A few hundred thousand protesters, each with a good rifle, marching on the offices of the religious authorities? That would have been quite a statement. Since the protesters aren't organized enough to fight in those numbers it mostly would have been a bloody circus.

[virginia mountainman]

32. About unconventional warfare

Many times in history, weak units, have overcome very powerful units.... It happens on a regular basis actually.. I have mentioned in here, several times, that a group of marksmen, with common scoped, hunting rifles, and pump, and semi auto 12 ga shotguns, could make life a living hell for an invader, foreign or domestic. All it takes is for the irregular forces to fight smarter.

I will run thru this once more, in a bit greater detail... But first, lets discuss, a forgotten war, from not so long ago..

The Winter War, between Finland and the Soviet Union, in the late 1930's....

Look at the information in this photograph.... (the numbers in the new wiki page have changed about Soviet war dead, but it is still impressive)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

Amazing, the Fins had very little more than bolt action rifles, machine guns (basically the same the Soviets had) and a handful of artillery, yet, look what their determined resistance did to the much more powerful Red Army...

The fins, did make one major contribution, to a modern guerrilla warrior's arsenal...The Molotov Cocktail... Probably wont knock out a modern armored vehicle anymore, BUT it will blind the crews, by smoking up the vision ports....let them come outside to clean them...

At the end of the Winter War, a Soviet General quipped, that they had only captured enough land to bury their dead.

That brings me to the 1948 Israeli conflict.. more specifically, the Battle of Yad Mordechai.

Where about 130 civilians, and 20 "local militia" held off 2 infantry battalions, and 1 Armored battalion...With little more than a tiny 2 inch mortar, 2 light machine guns, and bolt action WWII era rifles...

They stopped and held off for 5 days than 1,000 Egyptian troops, artillery, and tanks with that....And in the end, the survivors 25 where killed, about 50 wounded, WITHDREW (they lived to fight another day)

http://www.israelyoudidntknow.com/center/mila-18-headquarters/

It is folly to think, just because one side has all the "wonder weapons" that they would win...What about the US in the Vietnam War??

History clearly shows, it is not what the solder has to fight with, it is the amount of fight in his heart...You give him something, be it his family, his community, his religion, his LIBERTY, to defend, and an idea in his heart to fight for, he will fight, and he will fight to the death...No matter what is in his hand, be it a stone, a bolt action rifle, a gas bomb, a machine gun...He will fight, and fight hard..

The trick is for the untrained guerrilla, to remain calm, and bide his time, for just the right moment, when he can have the most effect, with what ever weapon he has..

I will state it here, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if just one in 100, American that own arms, and knows how to use them, was to rise up during a time of extreme turmoil in this nation, a time of unbelievable "black helicopter" type stuff is happening, it will become an amazingly violent, and bloody affair.

And if these riflemen, have popular support, and a steady stream of new recruits, they would clearly win...

I pray I, or my children, or my grand children never see that day.

[iverglas]

33. "I pray I, or my children, or my grand children never see that day."

Well I surely would too, if I did dumb things like pray.


I will state it here, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if just one in fifty, American that own arms, and knows how to use them, was to rise up during a time of extreme turmoil in this nation, a time of unbelievable "black helicopter" type stuff is happening, it will become an amazingly violent, and bloody affair.


Because we know exactly what they would be fighting for if they did. Since reasonable people recognize the idea of "turmoil" involving an illegitimate government in this situation for the crap it is, and decent people just don't try to overthrow governments in democracies by force ... or fantasize about doing it ...

[virginia mountainman]

35. Just what are you saying??

What fantasy?? Some DU users above, have very deluded ideas about what a such a battle would look like, I point to historical references, where very weak forces, faced very powerful ones

[spin]

37. Decent people overthrow corrupt or tyrannical governments...

when their government become so oppressive that there is no other choice, providing they have the means and the leadership.

It's a last choice and requires the rebels to be willing to die for their belief, because chances are they will. It requires the majority of the people in a country to have the same feelings and dedication.

No reasonable person ever wants to see a rebellion, because he realizes that all too often the aftermath may be worse than the situation that precipitated it, even if the rebellion is successful. All too often rebellions are fermented by people who hope to profit and use the dissatisfaction of others for their own gain.

In almost all cases, rebellion is not worth the effort. Working within the system, if possible, is more preferable. It takes time, but the results are often superior and there is a hell of a lot less bloodshed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. How about letting us know "exactly what they would be fighting for"?

Because we know exactly what they would be fighting for if they did. Since reasonable people recognize the idea of "turmoil" involving an illegitimate government in this situation for the crap it is, and decent people just don't try to overthrow governments in democracies by force ... or fantasize about doing it ...

C'mon, a little "declarative kryptonite" won't hurt you.

You seem stangely reluctant to even entertain the possibilty that, at some sad time in the future,
the US might get a murderously repressive government. *I* sure hope this never happens,
and I daresay few outside the Freeper/Stormfront/Christian Identity consortium do.

Like the man said, it would be a bloody, drawn out, agonizing affair, with no illusions of victory.
"It'll be over in a month" "It'll be over by Christmas".

Even the racist "Gone With The Wind" had it right:

"The poor fools thought it would be over in a month."

So why the reluctance to discuss even the hypothetical consequences of such a thing?

This is like asking a Stalinist about the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact...

[gorfle]

43. Yup. It's the million-dollar question.

You seem stangely reluctant to even entertain the possibilty that, at some sad time in the future,
the US might get a murderously repressive government.

It's always the same with the anti-firearm folks. The whole basis of their argument is that there is no reason to bear arms as insurance against tyranny because such an event will never happen to civilized nations ever again.

They honestly believe that we have reached the pinnacle of representative government of and for the people and that it will remain so forever.

[X_Digger]

44. "it will remain so forever," - so did Romans. n/t

[proteus_lives]

48. Great example.

The Finns were tough mothers. The Winter War is amazing to read about. And the consequences from it are mind-boggling.

[gorfle]

39. The real question here.

After pondering this question last night, it occurred to me that the real question here is not what would be the result of an armed uprising over Iran's fraudulent election, but rather:

Should there be an armed uprising over fraudulent elections?

Seriously.

I have been a vocal advocate of the right to keep and bear arms so as to be able to resist a tyranny with armed force.

If your national government is rigging elections, (and I'm not talking about something like our hanging chad fiasco) isn't that cause for armed rebellion?

[iverglas]

40. oh, do, please, see my post 18

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. No, but killing people for protesting a cooked election *might* be

Even the Declaration of Independence said it was better to put up with a bad government than rebel in most cases.

That said, if the government in Iran starts executing people for protesting, all bets are off.

The matter ought to be entirely up to the Iranians, as they would have to live with the consequences of
the grim and bloody nature of any rebellion against government, whether successful or not.

(US and Israeli neocons, I'm looking at you...)

[slackmaster]

49. ...Iranian regime, wading into its own unarmed people and axing them to death, bludgeoning women...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5920027&mesg_id=5920027