So tell me again how we need a heavily armed populace

[marybourg]

to fight a potential future oppressive government?

[derby378]

1. Tiananmen Square comes to mind, for starters...

Not all peaceful revolutions work out so well. If the military turns on the peaceful protestors, that's when the guns come out.

[boppers]

4. Within seconds of you :-)

See below.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Serious question...

I got a few hundred folks with AK-47s... the PLA has APCs, and a few hundred T-70s, choppers and the rest. How do you think those well armed AK-47 folks would have done against the force of the state?

[boppers]

12. A serious answer:

Soviets in Afghanistan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Ah you might remember that took ten years

and plenty of US Sidewinders.

[boppers]

20. ITYM Stingers..... (Sidewinders are air to air, and they lacked an air force)

It's not a fast form of combat, but it works... enough lightly armed, poorly trained, foot soldiers, and the occasional slightly (but not much) heavier weaponry, can bring down many tons of better armor, better equipment, and better training.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. You are correct

it still took them... and a few (more than a few) are still in the black market.

The square lasted a few hours. So if the less armed Chinese decided to go into resistance mode and ten years, we call that a civil war.

[boppers]

27. Yes, and the last one the US had was pretty brutal.

Very bloody form of combat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. As we like to quip around here, civil wars are NOT civil.

[DireStrike]

42. It also helps to have an enormously larger population of troops

The US killed up to 13 times as many opposing troops as it lost in the war.

[Tejas]

52. Stalingrad didn't take 10 years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. The opposing forces at Stalingrad

Perhaps I am missing something but The German Sixth ARMY and Zhukov's Red Army elements were well REGULAR ARMY SOLDIERS.

[Tejas]

64. Both Stalingrad and Leningrad were won by citizens.

No doubt the Red Army fought the battles, but the citizens turned the war on the invading Germans with in-city defense. From tank traps to petrol bombs, both cities were death traps for the Germans. Yes, maybe too much of a point on trying to give the hardy people their due, but when faced with the alternative they came through.

By the way, Stingers are what we supplied to the Afghans (not Sidewinders), the Russians announced withdrawal one year after their introduction on the battlefield.

[NuclearDem]

66. Well, to be honest, 1940s Russians were about ten steps above hardcore

It takes some resilience to keep fighting even when you've lost something equivalent to the US losing the entire country east of Chicago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. Again, maybe I am missing something, but you think

the CITIZENS of Stalingrad would have been able to turn the Germans away without the T-34s of the Red Army that were killing Panzer IIIs?

If you want to make that argument, it is more proper to speak of the DISRUPTION of the supply chain by the Partisans behind enemy lines. Yes the citizens of both cities took care of Red Army troops, were NOT evacuated, to make the troops fight harder and all that... but really.

[The Magistrate]

71. Apparently, Ma'am, He Does --- Which Is Just Too Sad For Words

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. And there is one incident in the whole Stalingrad mess

that would help him... the defense of the factory. The Germans came down the testing range, which had range markers. the workers used that to take out a column of Panzer IVs before they were overcome. They were using... tank guns to take out tanks.

[TheMightyFavog]

18. Viet Minh and Viet Cong versus the French?

And later the United States?

[SharonAnn]

9. Perhaps it depends on whose side the military is on?

[uppityperson]

10. Exactly. thank you.

[Mojeoux]

32. Yeah and now China owns US too. They called, they want you to go shopping.

Fuck repressive bullshit. Peaceful protest and the humanitarian instincts of the Egyptian military are in play. The world watches.

[rhett o rick]

57. China is winning the war with the US without firing a shot. Soon they will own all the businesses,

infrastructure and Congress. They win!

[Mojeoux]

97. Money talks, government flunkies walk, run to get some.

Yuk

[HEyHEY]

89. Yeah, some protesters actually did have weapons and killed soliders

In the days leading to the actual massacre. Look up the battle of muxidi. ANyway, the CPC was damn lucky that there were not many weapons in the public's hands. They would been killed. Those protesters were serious. Too bad it worked out the way it did.

[boppers]

2. Who got in between the cops and the protesters?

Oh, that's right. Soldiers. With tanks. And guns.

How'd it work out in Tienanmen when the soldiers didn't stay neutral?

[The Magistrate]

7. So You Figure, Sir, Man-Pad Anti-Tank Missiles In Every Closet?

Christ, sometimes you have to cut it with a machete, it gets so thick....

[boppers]

11. Pretty close...

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

Oh, and the "PAD" in MANPAD is Portable Air Defense. If they're coming at you with flying tanks, well, that'd be something new.

[The Magistrate]

16. So You Actually Do Prescribe Heavy Weapons For All, Sir?

Your view of the 'good society' includes wide-spread ownership of mortars, machine-guns, various guided and free-flight missiles, field artillery, attack helicopters, fighter planes, the whole nine yards --- freedom cannot be secure without it?

[boppers]

22. When was the last time somebody took on Switzerland?

Seems to work for them.

(Of course, it's not "wide-spread ownership", most heavy weaponry is owned by the state and maintained by the crews.)

[The Magistrate]

30. Why Should Anyone Bother, Sir?

It has been more useful as financial free-zone, through which skullduggery can be conducted. As a military power it is a nullity, and has been for a long time.

Now back in the day of pole-arms, they were quite the item, and their leading export was infantrymen....

And your argument requires the heavy weapons to be widespread in private ownership, since you maintain it is to be used against a people's own government. This means full possession of equipment, stocks of ammunition, and spare parts, located where the government would not be able to speedily seize them.

[boppers]

Why would anybody want to seize that much wealth? Really?

You also seem to assume that there is no in-between of private, vastly distributed, armies, and public, centralized, forces.

[The Magistrate]

40. Why Risk the Bolt-Hole, Sir?

Why imperil your own means of securing your loot, your conduit for trafficking with neutrals and foreign elements, agents, even obliging enemies?

These are deeper waters than you seem to imagine....

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. For some folks this is barely sufficient for home defense

And we all should own one of these... imagine the comute!



Of course I am kidding... but to some yep... that is what we all should, if we could afford them.

Me... seen the real effect of actual bullets, so that gives me pause.

[starroute]

84. And Switzerland is rethinking that gun-in-every-home deal

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/11/switzerland-vote-gun-reform-suicide

Switzerland votes on Sunday in a referendum on whether to tighten its gun laws in an attempt to reduce its high firearms suicide rate.

Switzerland has some of the most liberal weapons ownership rules in the western world, with an estimated 2.3m guns between its 8 million people. . . .

The result, say anti-gun campaigners, is that it has the highest rate of firearms suicides in Europe – about a quarter of Switzerland's 1,300 suicides each year involve a gun, according to federal statistics.

Most firearms are owned by ex-soldiers who, by a quirk of tradition, are allowed to keep their weapons after military service ends. Campaigners want all military-issued guns to be stored in secure army depots rather than in people's homes.

[TheMightyFavog]

19. Flying tank?

Isn't that the A-10 Warthog pretty well much summed up?

[boppers]

21. Well, it's the closest thing there is to a "flying tank"...

However, it lacks the same level of armor and offensive firepower, by an order of magnitude.

[The Magistrate]

23. Actually, Sir, Fairly Old Hat....

http://militarythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-is-coolbert-flying-tank-place-this.html

But you have yet to engage on the necessity of having the equipment of a regimental weapons company on every block as a condition of the good life.

You know perfectly well that if every person in Tiananman Square had had a semi-auto hunting rifle it would not have made the slightest difference to the outcome.

If the army backs the government, that is the end of it.

[derby378]

26. That's not what happened in America, Romania, etc.

If the army backs the government, that is no guarantee of victory by the government. And just look what happened in Afghanistan - and what is still happening over there today.

[The Magistrate]

35. Quite The Contrary, Sir

In the modern case, the one which matters, Romania, the armed forces did turn on the government, only elements of the security police remained loyal. Armies trump police.

In the case of colonial revolution here, the government opposed was not a home government. Local armed forces, colonial militias, did indeed turn in large part against the English crown; English soldiers on hand in a peace-time garrison were insufficient to the task of over-awing rebellion, and so the matter deteriorated into civil war, in which the Crown was greatly hampered by logistical concerns peculiar to the period, and by the active assistance to the rebels of rival powers such as France and Holland. Victory for the Colonials indeed turned almost wholly on French military assistance, both naval and land. The eighteenth century is poor guide for modern power relations, at least without a good deal of knowledgeable allowance being made for changed conditions.

[boppers]

31. "having the equipment of a regimental weapons company on every block" is yours.

Not mine.

[The Magistrate]

38. You, Sir, Claim An Armed Populace Would Have Prevailed At Tianamnen Square

We both know the level of weaponry in private hands that would have required. That stating it flatly demonstrates your proposition is ridiculous seems to trouble you, but that is not my problem.

[U4ikLefty]

44. Thank you Magistrate nt

[boppers]

46. Nope, not my claim. Yours again.

You don't cluster all your light troops in a shooting gallery. Especially without armor.

1. (OP) Why guns to fight goverments?
2. Because if you don't have them, you lose, see Tianamnen.

Those two propositions don't mean that an armed population, fighting an oppressive government, should chose either light arms vs. tanks in a city square, or a tank on every corner.

[The Magistrate]

49. Good Luck With That, Sir: Retreat Is Indeed Your Only Option

[derby378]

47. I think I brought up Tiananmen earlier, actually

In China, the current regime has outlawed all private ownership of firearms. Nada. Zippo. Not even for hunting, farming, ranching, etc. All guns are kept strictly in the hands of the military and law enforcement. If you're a Communist Party member in good standing who knows the right asses to kiss, the military might let you go on a safari expedition in the Chinese wilderness where you get to ride around in a jeep with an old hunting rifle under the strict supervision of three or four soldiers, but that's pretty much it. There is, however, a growing black market in firearms throughout China, despite the fact that mere possession will get you seven years.

We cannot resign ourselves to "Oh, well, the military is so much stronger than we are, so we might as well not even try." The Egyptians were able to force Mubarak out with mostly peaceful demonstrations, and that's wonderful. But if the military were to turn on the civilians, I assert the inherent right of the civilians to turn on the military.

[The Magistrate]

51. And Mr. Boppers Seconded the Proposition, Sir

Your claim was clearly that Tiananmen Square demonstrated an unarmed populace could not prevail. This is necessarily a claim that an armed populace could have prevailed in that situation. That claim is nonsense, unless one takes 'armed populace' as signifying the populace holds on its own armament roughly equivalent to that of the military forces its government fields. this was not, even so recently as a hundred fifty years ago, an unreasonable proposition: weapons in private hands differed little from those of governments, and even artillery was available for private purchase. Matters today are rather different.

[NuclearDem]

54. Alright, I've been reading all their posts to this point...

And I'm having a really hard time finding where you're getting this idea that they're advocating for widespread ownership of heavy weaponry.

[The Magistrate]

56. To Claim An Armed Populace Prevails Against tanks, Sir

Necessarily posits a populace equipped to the task of destroying tanks; there is no other way to do it.

The example invoked was the breaking of the crowd at Tianamnen square; for the crowd to have prevailed there, it would have had to have been liberally sprinkled with tank-killing weaponry. No other way to do it.

"To advocate a thing be done necessarily advocates for the means and methods needed to do it."

[NuclearDem]

61. You don't need rocket launchers and mortars to stop tanks, though

Litter the streets with burned-out cars, tire fires, Molotovs, sticky bombs, and a large number of people armed with even basic weapons, and tanks are going to really going to have a hard time doing their job.

See: Somalia, 1993, or even La Resistance during the Nazi occupation of France.

[The Magistrate]

69. Molotovs Are Useless For Tanks Nowadays, Sir

You are describing something that might have worked, forty or seventy years ago, if people were willing to take massive casualties and still stick to the business (which is a whole other question). You might as well urge shoving a pry-bar in among the bogies and pouring a bucket of kerosine on a blanket on the engine deck. In modern circumstances you need at minimum large quantities of uigh explosives, expertise in their handling and employment, and time to prepare command detonation devices. 'Sticky bombs' and molotovs are, by the way, extremely dangerous to their wielders: people think they are amatuer weapons, but they are not.

[NuclearDem]

74. You don't even necessarily have to destroy a tank to beat it

Tanks are crewed by people, people who, when petrol bombs start flying and small arms fire begins repeatedly pelting at their tank, will start to wonder whether there's something bigger in store for them. In the middle of a chaotic situation, there's also the worry of having one of the insurgents running up and damaging the treads, at which point the tank can do nothing more than sit and grind metal.

And yes, I'm aware of the dangers of petrol bombs and sticky bombs, but it doesn't change the fact that people still use them. They're simple enough to make, and they can still do a lot of damage against an armored vehicle.

[The Magistrate]

79. You Are Just Digging Yourself In Deeper,Sir

Basically, you are arguing that every dime spent on development, manufacture, and maintenance of main battle tanks is wasted, because any six or eight mopes on the street can put it out of action in a trice. The proposition collapses as soon as it is stated.

Modern tanks are essentially immune to incendiary devices; the effectiveness of these disappeared once tanks were fitted out for resistance to fall-out and poison gas. Both spaced armor and reactive armor counter 'sticky' bombs, and the spalling effect they aim for. Nowadays, you simply have to have either sizeable shaped charge weapons fired in multiples, or very, very large quantities of high explosive. Whether kinetic energy rounds have staged a come-back in the current day is beyond my low level of interest in the topic at present.

[NuclearDem]

81. Look, I'm not arguing that it's easy to damage modern tanks

But fact is, it can happen. We lost a significant number of Abrams in Iraq to very basic explosives and machine guns.

And neither am I arguing that every dime spent on R&D for MBTs is wasted because they fail in an environment they weren't designed for. MBTs are designed to take on other armored vehicles, which is why the M1 was so successful in Desert Storm against the Republican Guard. You put an Abrams in downtown Samarra, it's a different environment. Which is why R&D also focuses on building vehicles like the Stryker which are designed for urban warfare.

You also seem to be ignoring that I'm not talking about destroying tanks...disabling them, on the other hand...

[The Magistrate]

83. Yes, Sir, You Are: You Are Arguing It Can Be Done By Angry Crowds With Hand Weapons

Pretty much the definition of 'easy' in military terms.

We have not lost 'significant' numbers of main battle tanks in Iraq; we have lost a number of armored personnel carriers and light armor vehicles, which are very different propositions. And those we have lost have been gotten by very large command-detonated mines, which are heavyt weapoins, the province of an engineer detachment in a conventional force.

Crowds of angry citizens lose to tanks, unless they have a good supply of real anti-tank weaponry. Thus, the proposition an armed populace could have prevailed at Tianamnen Square necessarily posits a populace armed widely possessed of real anti-tank weaponry.

[NuclearDem]

86. Alright, I'll give you that

[Straw Man]

92. Well, Sir...

To Claim An Armed Populace Prevails Against tanks, Sir

Necessarily posits a populace equipped to the task of destroying tanks; there is no other way to do it.

The populace doesn't prevail with small arms in a pitched battle, no. That's obvious. But it conducts a guerilla war, which may or may not eventually prevail. There are numerous examples, most of which involve the guerilla force eventually acquiring heavier weapons.

What is interesting is that those poo-poo-ing the idea of armed insurrection are essentially telling the Wretched of the Earth to just lie back and enjoy their screwing. "People Power" revolutions tend to be cosmetic and limited in lasting effect. But then again, so do violent ones.

Never mind.

[The Magistrate]

94. Day Late And a Dollar Short, Sir

The terms were set by the people engaged, who maintained an armed populace would have prevailed in the confrontation named. Every reply, inlcuding yours, has sought to0 back off in some measure or direction from that ludicrous, but reflexive, claim.

Guerrilla war is a different matter. Guerrilla campaigns are always of very long duration; they always involve a balance of atrocity between the contenders, in which the guerrillas must come to be more feared by the people than the regulars, while seeming to have better aim in whom they brutalize than the regulars do. Guerrillas kill far more of 'their' people than they do police and soldiers. The skill set involved is approximately that of a protection racketeer and smuggler, spiced with starry-eyed idealism and an ability to suspend empathy absolutely. Weapons are not a very large part of it; guerrilla struggles are political contests, not military ones.

[boppers]

98. You are the one who assumed that an armed populace would have not prevailed.

The OP was not specific to to a single battle, nor a specific conflict, or context.

By reducing it down to a given event, your argument is roughly equal to saying:
"If everybody in Hiroshima had a gun, well, they still died when a nuke killed them, therefore, guns are totally useless."

The "therefore" in that argument is the problem.

[Doc_Technical]

34. The Russian MIL Mi-24 "Hind" helicopter.

Also known as a "Flying Tank."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

[Warren Stupidity]

48. !

[xchrom]

3. we don't -- it's a hype.

and of some one were a real revolutionary -- they wouldn't announce they ere armed here.

it's all bull shit and gang{read people of color} paranoia.

[slackmaster]

6. We Democratic gun owners get it. You are preaching to the choir.

Nobody on DU seriously buys into the right-wing wet dream of a popular armed uprising putting down the government.

[conspirator]

8. You mean the current US government is not oppressive?!

2 illegal wars, butfucking of the middle-class. You don't feel oppressed cause probably you have a good job.
The egyptians have overthrown a pig, not the higher in the food chain, and the regime will not change.
Egypt is controlled by the US elite, and like in the Animal Farm, they will replace a pig with another.
If some day someone in US gains balls to overthrow the US elite, then they will need heavy hardware, absolutely

[Shagbark Hickory]

13. Only need be armed with twitter device things

[boppers]

24. ...and molotov cocktails, and shotguns, and swords....

...somehow I get the feeling I saw very different things in the last two weeks (that others didn't see).

[Shagbark Hickory]

37. Those were used by the pro-mubarak goonbags.

[boppers]

41. Uhm. They were used on both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUlWDz2BcQ

[Curmudgeoness]

14. I agree that we would not be able to win an armed fight

against our government, and having armed protesters would only make the chances of peaceful overthrow less likely. What Egypt seemed to have is a determined populace. These people were not willing to stop and they were willing to die. Since it was a mostly peaceful rebellion, every forceful action against the protesters looked even worse. If these people had started to degenerate into violence, it would have been easier for the government to get away with retaliations. What worked here that does not work other places is the apparent numbers of people. If they kill a hundred protesters, ten thousand would have been there to take there place.

[backwoodsbob]

17. do you really want to know?

real question

[TheKentuckian]

29. What evidence do you have that such isn't a part of the puzzle? Egypt?

Mubarak isn't the government but rather it's face.

The population should be a check against it's own military and if we don't have sufficient arms to strike that balance then we need greater proliferation of heavy equipment.

A large percentage of citizens should be at worst a stalemate against an out of order government with control of mercenaries and/or the military.

[former9thward]

33. Pardon the pun but aren't you jumping the gun here?

Just as no one saw the rebellion coming, no one knows what the future Egyptian government will look like. History is littered with rebellions/revolutions that ultimately failed.

[JuniperLea]

39. Non-violence is key...

Joan Baez comes to mind... again and again.

[backwoodsbob]

45. tell me you are joking

singing kumbuya and playing folk songs isn't going to change shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Did you miss the most recent example of this?

Like the last 17 days? Really. It was a NON VIOLENT event.

[derby378]

58. Nonviolence is optimal

Being Quaker myself, that's where my heart lies. I believe in the power of peaceful revolution. Where I have disagreements with many of my kind is in the parameters governing what should happen if peaceful revolution is crushed by brutal repression.

[GoCubsGo]

43. Well, first, you have to pretend that you are a bed-wetting conservative...

Yeah, I know that "bed-wetting conservative" is redundant. Then, you have to pretend you are really gullible, and fed stories that everyone is out to get you. Let me know when you reach that point, and then, I can explain it to you. ;-)

[NuclearDem]

50. Egypt is not the United States

Apples to oranges.

[The Magistrate]

53. How So, Sir?

It is clear that about a week ago, soldiers refused orders to break the crowd, and the thing became a matter of time only from then on. One would like to think, at least, our own soldiers would do as well in such a situation.

[rhett o rick]

55. Well said. nm

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

60. Makes it easier for sure.

If I ran a country and the armed populace outnumbered my troops 26 to 1... I wouldn't try half the shit Mubarak did.

[Throd]

62. Don't own a gun if you think they are useless against oppression

I'll hold on to mine.

[Lucian]

63. A few fringe gun nuts can't take on the US army.

[Kennah]

65. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

A few hundred mostly untrained people with handguns, a few rifles, and improvised incendiary devices again two thousand well-armed German troops, including about 800 Waffen-SS.

They held out for about 4 weeks, apparently without any plan or forethought to winning, surviving, or escaping.

[Ozymanithrax]

70. And most of the survivors died in prison camps. n/t

[Kennah]

76. If a person sets out on an adventure thinking they're already dead, they will probably succeed.

[The Magistrate]

80. Not Really, Sir: Sounds Nice, But....

[Ozymanithrax]

68. The army supported the people because it wasn't an armed rebellion.

If the people had tried to take the government down with arms, they would have faced the largest and best armed military in Africa. The army would have destroyed them in detail, and the death toll in the tens of thousands.

Any armed group in the U.S. that tried to take down the government would be destroyed by the military. Survivors would face treason and execution.

Over three hundred people died because Mubarak's thugs were willing to kill. The people protected themselves without guns when necessary, and won.

The need of an armed populace is another fantasy of the NRA.

[The Magistrate]

72. Exactly, Sir

Of all romantic attachments, the most ludicrous is romantic attachment to violence.

[mmonk]

75. To fight tyranny such as universal healthcare.

[NuclearDem]

77. Because...because...I liked Red Dawn!

WOLVERINES!!!!!111

[boppers]

82. You win the thread.

An internets for you!

[kster]

85. Its not necessary anymore, now you have Twitter, Facebook

the social networks. The Police and Army can no longer be bullshitted by their Governments. As long as the protesters stay peaceful it will be pretty hard for the Police and Army to fire on the crowds.
If the government can keep the members of the Police and Army from reading Twitter and Facebook, it might be possible, but I just don't see that happening. So in the future, the working class people including the police, military, and the people are connected like never before.

The Government will try to tell their personal police guards that if they want to keep their six figured salaries, they had better get out in the the streets and make the crowd get violent. but so long as the protesters keep their cool they will prevail.

The elites all around the world are shaking in their boots over this INTERNET thingy.

My two cents...FWIW

[boppers]

87. The Egyptian army was instructed to avoid media, and the internet was turned off.

People give facebook and twitter way too much credit... one more amusing take I saw tonight was that turning off the internet was what made this happen.

Without the internet, people freaked out, had to actually socialize, and took to the streets instead of hiding behind their screens.

[kster]

88. Internet on or off the government is screwed either way, thats

even better. Thanks for pointing that out.

[boppers]

90. Don't underestimate the power of a million pissed off gamers.

They study military tactics on a *nightly* basis, and the social/blogger folks have spent years on propaganda/messaging tactics.

The internet has created legions of folks with skills that were once controlled by the state.

The world's changing. Fast.

[kster]

91. The only time the gamers get off the couch in my house

is if they need a snack or the internet goes down. Then they start scrambling big time.

Indeed the world is changing.

[boppers]

93. Cut off a whole nation of them...

...and you get Egypt.

:toast:

Now, they have to figure out the snack problem...

[kster]

95. The gamers would be looking out the

window looking for an internet connection. They would be wondering what the people outside were doing. As far as using their gaming skills against the people. I'm not so sure?

I'd have to go with the bloggers on this one. :)

[RegieRocker]

96. Insincere OP