The Revolution vs. the modern military

[Veovis]

This occurred to me a while ago, but I only remembered to post it just now.

How would a revolution survive against bunker busters, smart drones, and other tools of modern warfare? Killing has become a lot less personal nowadays; at least in Russia the tsar's men had to look their targets in the eyes. Plus, a lot of them were conscripts back then, weren't they? Most countries today have all-volunteer forces, so there have to be more jingoïsts and true-believers in the U.S. military.

Does a popular uprising have a chance against today's armed forces?

[ClearlyChrist]

Well, If The Past Is Any Example To Follow, The Very Force The Military Has Been Fighting, Has Most Likely Been Funded By Their Government To Begin With. America, For Example; "Iraq Has An Abundance Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction" How Do You Know? "Uh, We Looked At The Receipt" In Short, It's A Safe Bet That The Military's Government Would Supply The Rebels With Such Things.

[piet11111]

If the revolution is popular enough then the army will collapse as the soldiers are the sons and daughters of the workers.
If you look at history you will see that traditionally the police are the ones to fight the people until the end as they are the ones trained and indoctrinated to oppress us.

What would be a problem is foreign army's look at Saudi Arabia sending troops to Bahrain to suppress the population there.

[Per Levy]

while it is true that the us military is based on a "volunteer" army, many of these "volunteers" are poor and joined because they felt like they had no other option to get out of their desperation. so there might be still a big chunk of soldiers who could switch sides. but thats only speculation of course.

[xub3rn00dlex]

The military complex will never switch sides, it is an enterprise and business is booming. What we would have to count on is mass consciousness developing in the military by the soldiers who actually do the dirty work. If this revolution does break out into war, without mass defections i don't really see the workers being more the flies on the windshield against modern military.

[khad]

while it is true that the us military is based on a "volunteer" army, many of these "volunteers" are poor and joined because they felt like they had no other option to get out of their desperation. so there might be still a big chunk of soldiers who could switch sides. but thats only speculation of course.
Actually, middle class white people are overrepresented among army recruits.

The poverty draft only really exists if you live on a reservation.

[Kosakk]

The military complex will never switch sides, it is an enterprise and business is booming.

True. But isn't that just the top-brass and the officer corps?

I'm guessing the soldiers would have serious doubt following orders to kill their "own people" in a revolution. Especially in a demcracy.
In Egypt they sendt the soldiers against the protesters, but that's not happening in Europe or the US. Probably cause they know soldiers will defect?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

agreed. unless the people who defect are the drone pilots, the weapons manufacturers, and, actually military soldiers

[The Douche]

Actually, middle class white people are overrepresented among army recruits.

The poverty draft only really exists if you live on a reservation.

What do you mean by middle class?



Also this question is phrased incorrectly. Revolution is not just a military action, a war waged by one force against another. Communist revolution implies using labor as a weapon, you can't drop bunker busters if workers won't make them, you can't fly an apache if workers refuse to process fuel for it. You can't shoot a striker if there is nobody to manufacture your ammo.

[La Comédie Noire]

I'm guessing the soldiers would have serious doubt following orders to kill their "own people" in a revolution. Especially in a demcracy.
In Egypt they sendt the soldiers against the protesters, but that's not happening in Europe or the US. Probably cause they know soldiers will defect?

I think the stability of civil government is something we take for granted in the industrialized nations, which is quite paradoxical when you consider how much the pentagon figures into everyday life. The military is ready and even willing to take over in the event of a popular uprising, I even think they have specific drills and algorithms for such occurrences?

As for soldiers being hesitant about shooting their own people I agree, but If I were a smart commander I'd make sure different regiments went to different cities so there wouldn't be sympathizing, I'd want them to seem as alien as possible. Not to mention the military is made up of specialized units and private contractors who either have extreme loyalty to the state or have no loyalties except to a paycheck.

On the other hand during revolutions social institutions become highly unstable and are prone to simply melting away under extreme popular pressure. People will abandon their posts and strip away their uniforms as it becomes highly unprofitable and even dangerous to be associated with the old social order. This could happen, but I'm only going on the experience of poorly equipped conscription armies. I haven't read about how professional soldiers would act in such instances.

[khad]

What do you mean by middle class?
As in people from the poorest neighborhoods simply do not have a very good chance of getting in.

Just because there's all this hoopla about predatory recruiting practices in impoverished areas doesn't mean that the recruiting is actually successful.
http://i.imgur.com/3arVG.png


Also, in terms of racial statistics, latinos are severely underrepresented. Amerindians are the only group that is significantly overrepresented.
http://i.imgur.com/F5SOT.png

[Apoi_Viitor]

I doubt the revolution will really be that violent. And I don't see it coming about through a long and drawn out civil war. Remember, wasn't the Winter Palace taken with only two or so deaths?

[The Douche]

Khad, I figured you would be defining "middle class" by income levels (which is a crude, and liberal definition).

Yes, lots of the people in the military are the kids of people with union jobs, and high paying blue collar jobs, the kind that are shrinking now, those kids are enlisting to get college benefits so that they can afford school without outrageous loans.

Furthermore, the inelligibility of those from the poorest backgrounds is usually because kids who come from even worse neighborhoods often have convictions involving drugs or gangs which usually disqualifies them from service.


Either way, a higher level of income does not make one middle class. The majority of enlisted soldiers come from a working class background, and will leave the military and either be workers or student-workers.

[khad]

Either way, a higher level of income does not make one middle class. The majority of enlisted soldiers come from a working class background, and will leave the military and either be workers or student-workers.
The middle class by marxist definitions doesn't exist, so when I used the term, I was naturally referring to income levels.

I'm was just pointing out the fact that the poorest Americans don't have a very good chance of getting into the military. That's a liberal chimera that really needs to die--that the military is stuffed with people who joined under threat of starvation.

[Os Cangaceiros]

re: the OP

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1712127&postcount=3

[The Douche]

How does the middle class of marxist definition not exist? People who own the means of production but also engage in labor, right?

Lots of people own small businesses and work at them. Lots of people are independent artisans (there are tons of independent contractors, carpenters, bricklayers, roofers, plumbers, etc).

I don't think the suggestion is that our society says "army or starvation". The army is filled with people who are economically disadvantaged, you don't have to be facing starvation to be working class.

Middle class kids can (generally) afford to go to college without joining the army. I have met very few wealthy people in the military, most of them are students, precarious workers, or hold blue collar jobs. (excluding officers who tend to be professionals and business owners)

[The Idler]

A revolution would not survive against bunker busters, smart drones, and other tools of modern warfare.
A popular uprising against today's armed forces stands no chance. Winning the democratic route will be crucial to neutralise the armed forces being used against a popular uprising.

[Sleepflower]

I think that as time passes and weaponry n military gets more effective and such, it gets all the time more difficult for the masses to change their situation... As the military technique gets more advanced, so does the indoctrination, as the elite can learn from prior mistakes to enhance their tools. I'm thinking it might well become even lots more difficult, in a near future, to bring about a revolution that what it is now. What can be done, I suppose, is to inform the masses so that the institutions that keep the system stable will collapse while a revolution takes place. Should it happen that many enough people stay at their posts while a large number leave theirs to revolt, the military will most likely wipe out all opposition, yes.

[eric922]

If the revolution isn't popular enough to gain the support of the majority of the military, then it probably isn't going to succeed anyway. It must be a movement of the vast majority, and most of the military are working class.

[safeduck]

The government would probably brainwash a lot of the army by telling them the revolutionaries are "terrorists" who kill anyone who dosen't agree with them. Then I think the army would have no problem shooting fellow citizens in the head. They would probably use the media to brainwash a lot of the public also. I think Guerrilla tactics will beat any modern army with the right leaders/tacticians. If you had enough support, I guess you could do like they did in Egypt and overthrow the government fairly peacefully. But I think that would never work in a western country because the people are too brainwashed and no matter how bad it gets, the majority always seem to think their government is good. See also how the media quickly demonizes protestors into idiots and thug rioters. The democracy system is too corrupt in most western countries so I doubt a left wing party would be voted in. I think a civil war and use of Guerilla warfare would be the only way to overthrow a western government. Thats my take on it anyway...

[Ocean Seal]

This occurred to me a while ago, but I only remembered to post it just now.

How would a revolution survive against bunker busters, smart drones, and other tools of modern warfare? Killing has become a lot less personal nowadays; at least in Russia the tsar's men had to look their targets in the eyes. Plus, a lot of them were conscripts back then, weren't they? Most countries today have all-volunteer forces, so there have to be more jingoïsts and true-believers in the U.S. military.

Does a popular uprising have a chance against today's armed forces?
Because chances are they wouldn't use these tools against the workers because they tend to be extremely destructive and they don't want to build up their own infrastructure. A good Stalin quote is "The bourgeoisie will sell us the hope with which we hang them". The bourgeoisie isn't capable of thinking in the long term.

[Tim Finnegan]

I am still wondering what revolution would involve a preponderance of bunkers that were ripe for busting.

[Marxaveli]

The government would probably brainwash a lot of the army by telling them the revolutionaries are "terrorists" who kill anyone who dosen't agree with them. Then I think the army would have no problem shooting fellow citizens in the head. They would probably use the media to brainwash a lot of the public also. I think Guerrilla tactics will beat any modern army with the right leaders/tacticians. If you had enough support, I guess you could do like they did in Egypt and overthrow the government fairly peacefully. But I think that would never work in a western country because the people are too brainwashed and no matter how bad it gets, the majority always seem to think their government is good. See also how the media quickly demonizes protestors into idiots and thug rioters. The democracy system is too corrupt in most western countries so I doubt a left wing party would be voted in. I think a civil war and use of Guerilla warfare would be the only way to overthrow a western government. Thats my take on it anyway...

Sadly I have to agree with this. The military will NOT take our side. They have been heavily indoctrinated to fight any form of terrorism, abroad or at home, and combined with their blind devotion to nationalism, we would have little chance of getting them on our side. Too much propaganda through mass media and false consciousness here in America.

[Omsk]

Sadly I have to agree with this. The military will NOT take our side. They have been heavily indoctrinated to fight any form of terrorism, abroad or at home, and combined with their blind devotion to nationalism, we would have little chance of getting them on our side. Too much propaganda through mass media and false consciousness here in America.

This is not true,I don't think too many soldiers would shoot their own sons,mohers,fathers,family members and friends.What do you think,who was among the first groups to protest against the Tsar?The soldiers on the front lines and in garrisons.

[khad]

This is not true,I don't think too many soldiers would shoot their own sons,mohers,fathers,family members and friends.What do you think,who was among the first groups to protest against the Tsar?The soldiers on the front lines and in garrisons.
Different war, different force structure, different underlying economics.

If you look at the pattern established by professional armies in Europe in the 19th century, they were almost exclusively the ones shooting revolting workers and militiamen.

[manic expression]

The more expensive the weapon, the more its application is impeded by a crisis in capitalism. It's not such a cinch to ship a bunch of M1 tanks across the world when you can't pay for gas.

If imperialism had to resort to pay-offs and back-room deals to get to some sort of safe position in Iraq, and if it hasn't been able to get full control over Afghanistan after over 10 years, then that says something.

[manic expression]

Different war, different force structure, different underlying economics.

If you look at the pattern established by professional armies in Europe in the 19th century, they were almost exclusively the ones shooting revolting workers and militiamen.
True, but forgiving the jump backwards in history, it was also the professional army of 18th-Century France that mostly stood by dumbfounded as revolution swept the country.

[Le Socialiste]

People really need to stop making connections between Czarist Russia and 21st century America. Not only are the two divided by historical circumstances, they are very different in terms of sociopolitical awareness and conditions. Things have changed significantly since then, and we must take these changes into account when discussing the probability of mass defections from the modern military. Victory won't be decided by whoever has the most arms at its disposal (although this will play an important role), but by the willingness of the working-class to slow down and/or sabotage the production process. As someone already pointed out, the military can't shoot us if there aren't any workers producing the bullets.

A workers' revolution relies on more than sheer numbers; without the necessary application of labor tactics within the movement the workers will find themselves crushed underfoot. The use of labor-related actions can effectively slow down the production and use of military weapons, and the willingness of those involved to sabotage production efforts can go a long way in keeping the military on uncertain footing. The tactics used would have to be varied and diverse - nothing should be off the table (short of acts which would alienate the workers from the struggle and allow the military the upper hand). We shouldn't place our hope in mass defections from the military's lower ranks. While a few may be sympathetic to the workers' cause even fewer would take the step in joining them. The working-class can't afford to waste its time looking for allies where there are none, especially in the institutions of the bourgeoisie. They must tap into their own ability to organize and agitate amongst their members if they're to make any significant headway.

[Psy]

A revolution would not survive against bunker busters,

The US bombed Vietnam to hell and still lost.



smart drones,

Useless against electronic warfare. If a revolutionary army is using TV and radio station to heavily jam the area then it would be impossible for drones to fly over the area without losing contact with its operators.



and other tools of modern warfare. A popular uprising against today's armed forces stands no chance.

And they can't be manufactured by a revolution because?

[Kitty_Paine]

The US bombed Vietnam to hell and still lost.

Yes, but bombs and other forms of bunker busters are far more sophisticated now... far more. Like scary far... :rolleyes:



Useless against electronic warfare. If a revolutionary army is using TV and radio station to heavily jam the area then it would be impossible for drones to fly over the area without losing contact with its operators.

Not that I don't believe you, but how do you mean exactly? How would that work? And is it complicated to do? I only ask because if It was relatively easy I feel as if it would be put into practice a lot (a lot more?) in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition forces.

[Psy]

Yes, but bombs and other forms of bunker busters are far more sophisticated now... far more. Like scary far... :rolleyes:

You mean like in Iraq and Afghanistan where smart bombs and missiles have proven too impracticable due to the cost of such weapons.



Not that I don't believe you, but how do you mean exactly? How would that work? And is it complicated to do? I only ask because if It was relatively easy I feel as if it would be put into practice a lot (a lot more?) in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition forces.

Drone operate on radio frequencies, this basically means transmissions travel through the air to and from the drone. Jamming basically increases the background noise level to the point no receiver can see the signal. This is why RF guided missiles were replaced with wire guided.

It is relatively easy for electronic technicians skilled in RF, also having electronic warfare training makes it more effective and makes it so you don't have to jam your own equipment to jam the enemy's. This means you need a force the actually have people skilled in radio frequencies that is more likely when you are talking about a large worker uprising that include engineers in a modern industrial nation.

[Kosakk]

It is relatively easy for electronic technicians skilled in RF, also having electronic warfare training makes it more effective and makes it so you don't have to jam your own equipment to jam the enemy's. This means you need a force the actually have people skilled in radio frequencies that is more likely when you are talking about a large worker uprising that include engineers in a modern industrial nation.

I read an article once about drones used in Iraq. Turnes out the insurgents knew how to hack them. They couldn't control them, but they tapped into their video feed, thus seeing what the operator was seeing.
It's a small step, but proves that it is possible for Average Joe to fight of a modern army.

Then again, I believe fighting a regular army was as difficult in the 19th century as it is today.

[thefinalmarch]

I am still wondering what revolution would involve a preponderance of bunkers that were ripe for busting.
A hoxhaist one.

Anyway, there are a few people ITT who should probably just shut up and quit the military talk, because, with the exception of Chris/cmoney, I'm led to believe that they're more likely to be basement dwellers than anyone with actual military experience (let alone master strategists for the Revolutionary Army™).

[Smyg]

A hoxhaist one.



:lol: I love you, man.

[safeduck]

Can I just add that the son wont shoot father argument is invalid in my opinion. Yes, they might refuse to shoot their freinds and family. But 9 times out of 10, they would have no problem with shooting someone who has no realation to them what so ever. So thats a 100+ people they would have no problem with killing most of the time.

[Renegade Saint]

As for soldiers being hesitant about shooting their own people I agree, but If I were a smart commander I'd make sure different regiments went to different cities so there wouldn't be sympathizing, I'd want them to seem as alien as possible. Not to mention the military is made up of specialized units and private contractors who either have extreme loyalty to the state or have no loyalties except to a paycheck.

I assume you're talking about the state/national guard here, because the active duty military isn't segregated by where the troops are from.

Based on my personal experience/knowledge (living on military bases for 20 years, knowing dozens of military members, as well as something of the demographics of the military) if there were ever a situation where a majority of the population believed that the US government was fundamentally illegitimate and began actions like those of May 1968 in France that were endangering the whole state, large swaths of the junior enlisted of the Army/Navy/Air Force would defect. Defections among those not on active duty would be substantially higher, and defections among the marines, senior enlisted, and officer corps would be virtually nil.

Of course we're just engaging in guesswork here.

[Optiow]

I doubt the revolution will really be that violent. And I don't see it coming about through a long and drawn out civil war. Remember, wasn't the Winter Palace taken with only two or so deaths?
Yep. But then there was a big ass civil war afterwards...


A revolution would not survive against bunker busters, smart drones, and other tools of modern warfare.
A popular uprising against today's armed forces stands no chance. Winning the democratic route will be crucial to neutralise the armed forces being used against a popular uprising.
What if the bourgeois pull a 'Salvador Allende' on the new democratic government though?


I think that any revolution needs a chunk of the military on its side. In revolutionary situations I believe many soldiers would defect, and they would help carry the fight to victory. As already stated, it is the police who are the main problem, as they are used to fighting their own countrymen.

[Marxaveli]

This is not true,I don't think too many soldiers would shoot their own sons,mohers,fathers,family members and friends.What do you think,who was among the first groups to protest against the Tsar?The soldiers on the front lines and in garrisons.

You would be surprised what the US Military is being trained to do. The material conditions of the Russian Revolution and the ones in the present-day United States are different, not just economically, but socially and culturally as well. I wish you were right, I really do, but our military is heavily indoctrinated with nationalistic idealism.

[Renegade Saint]

What if the bourgeois pull a 'Salvador Allende' on the new democratic government though?

That's why you arm the population (we're assuming most of the population is on our side) and begin dismantling the military until it resembles Switzerland's where only about 5% of their 'military' is full time careerists. The Swiss route accomplishes both goals at once.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A hoxhaist one.


well played.

[Psy]

That's why you arm the population (we're assuming most of the population is on our side) and begin dismantling the military until it resembles Switzerland's where only about 5% of their 'military' is full time careerists. The Swiss route accomplishes both goals at once.
And what if they pull a Detroit 1967, when the US Army sent in armor units because armed Vietnam vets were proving to be to effective in sniping the National Guard?

http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/files/images/354.preview.jpg

You need a revolutionary army to repeal the tanks the bourgeoisie will eventually roll into any workers controlled city. Imagine if the Vietnam Vets in Detroit 1967 were organized into a revolutionary army that asked workers of Detroit to lend them their labor as they escalated the uprising into a full scale war against the US bourgeoisie state.

[Renegade Saint]

And what if they pull a Detroit 1967, when the US Army sent in armor units because armed Vietnam vets were proving to be to effective in sniping the National Guard?

You need a revolutionary army to repeal the tanks the bourgeoisie will eventually roll into any workers controlled city. Imagine if the Vietnam Vets in Detroit 1967 were organized into a revolutionary army that asked workers of Detroit to lend them their labor as they escalated the uprising into a full scale war against the US bourgeoisie state.
Riots in one city (or even a few cities) do not a revolution make. Rolling in armor divisions is not an effective tactic against mass strikes. Mass strikes, mass occupations, mass mass protests, with some direct actions: these are the weapons of the working class. The idea that the US government will fall due to a 'revolutionary army' besting the US military is :laugh:

[Psy]

Riots in one city (or even a few cities) do not a revolution make. Rolling in armor divisions is not an effective tactic against mass strikes. Mass strikes, mass occupations, mass mass protests, with some direct actions: these are the weapons of the working class.

It worked for the USSR many times. The problem is tanks are the bully of the battlefield and small arms are useless against them thus thus tank can simply heard workers. To deal with tanks you need anti-tank infantry that have the tools and training to get around the thick armor of the tank.



The idea that the US government will fall due to a 'revolutionary army' besting the US military is :laugh:
No but taking out the tanks the US Army sent into Detroit would have cleared the way for a Detroit commune to become a workers state independent of the USA.

[Renegade Saint]

No but taking out the tanks the US Army sent into Detroit would have cleared the way for a Detroit commune to become a workers state independent of the USA.
Yeah, I'm sure the US would have allowed one of their major industrial cities become an independent commune :rolleyes: How'd that go in Paris?

[Psy]

Yeah, I'm sure the US would have allowed one of their major industrial cities become an independent commune :rolleyes: How'd that go in Paris?
And how did containing revolutionary France after 1789 work for Great Britain, oh yhea it didn't. The counter-revolution inside France proved much more a greater threat then the super power of the time, militarily revolutionary France was able to to keep the capitalists armies at bay (at least armies outside France). Same with Russia, revolutionary armies can handle even the largest imperialist army.

Of course a revolutionary Detroit can't survive on its own but if the revolution spreads then revolutionary armies can block imperialist armies from snuffing out revolutions.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think the extent to which the revolution tilts on the issue of (x) thermonuclear weapons, (y) troop readiness, (z) enemy unit placement, is the extent to which the revolution has probably stalled out. Not to say we should not support revolutionary workers fighting against capitalist armies, but it might be a prolonged process, not simply 'the revolution'. I don't think Marx had in mind when he said "fifty years of civil war," literally continuous World War I + level carnage between classes for fifty plus years. I think it was probably more the ebb-and-flow of class struggle, with bursts of capitalist crisis, workers' struggle, maybe culminating in violence and political fumblings, but this might be a developmental process, before the class struggle is adjoined with the proper weight in the favor of the working-class' bid for political power.

The prospects for the success of the revolution are weighed in the class struggle, and the proletariat's readiness to seize and exercise political power as a class, not men-at-arms and ammunition stocks.

[Renegade Saint]

And how did containing revolutionary France after 1789 work for Great Britain, oh yhea it didn't. The counter-revolution inside France proved much more a greater threat then the super power of the time, militarily revolutionary France was able to to keep the capitalists armies at bay (at least armies outside France). Same with Russia, revolutionary armies can handle even the largest imperialist army.

Of course a revolutionary Detroit can't survive on its own but if the revolution spreads then revolutionary armies can block imperialist armies from snuffing out revolutions.
Again; anyone who thinks the 'revolution' will come by force of arms against the US security apparatus is mental. Do you have any idea of the firepower of the US military? Rebels capturing a few tanks won't amount to shit when the f-22s show up. Those examples have literally no bearing on 21st century USA (or 1967 USA for that matter).
This is the only viable model for the overthrow of an economically advanced state:
http://www.marxist.com/french-revolution-may-1968-part-one.htm
It would have worked if not for the conservatism of the Communist and Socialist parties. They threw De Gaulle a lifeline and saved the 5th (bourgious) Republic. If you read it there's a few quotes from De Gaulle's own biographies where he says the Left will be in power within days.

You seem to be missing a key point: in a liberal democracy you don't need a 'revolutionary army' if you have the people (don't confuse that point with electoral politics fetishism or reformism). They simply withdraw their consent (by striking) and occupy everything, from their workplaces to government buildings.

[Psy]

Again; anyone who thinks the 'revolution' will come by force of arms against the US security apparatus is mental. Do you have any idea of the firepower of the US military?

Yes yet the US war machine has proven to be incompetent in winning modern wars for some decades now due to massive corruption in the Pentagon that is only interested in embezzling as much money as they can from the US military.




Rebels capturing a few tanks won't amount to shit when the f-22s show up.

F-22s won't do shit against revolutionary forces on the ground that are hiding from it and waiting till it passes before moving again.



You seem to be missing a key point: in a liberal democracy you don't need a 'revolutionary army' if you have the people (don't confuse that point with electoral politics fetishism or reformism). They simply withdraw their consent (by striking) and occupy everything, from their workplaces to government buildings.
The problem is bourgeoisie armed forces have massive stockpiles, they planned to ride out a nuclear war destroying 100% of the means of production so massive general strikes won't topple them.

[xub3rn00dlex]

Yes yet the US war machine has proven to be incompetent in winning modern wars for some decades now due to massive corruption in the Pentagon that is only interested in embezzling as much money as they can from the US military.

Indeed, but the technology is still pretty advanced. my worries would lie in drone warfare - at what point does the pentagon become successful in alienating soldiers so much from their killing that they can do it on innocents at will?



F-22s won't do shit against revolutionary forces on the ground that are hiding from it and waiting till it passes before moving again.

Haven't F-22s not been used yet? Aren't they just sitting there?



The problem is bourgeoisie armed forces have massive stockpiles, they planned to ride out a nuclear war destroying 100% of the means of production so massive general strikes won't topple them.

Exactly. However, workers could attempt to seize these stockpiles for their own benefits. I don't really see us winning a revolutionary war without conducting a cyber war though - if you can shutdown the defense network, you can win.

[Kitty_Paine]

You mean like in Iraq and Afghanistan where smart bombs and missiles have proven too impracticable due to the cost of such weapons.

JDAM's are relatively cheap and effective, the U.S. uses them all of the time. But besides that I have heard that a lot of the laser guided munition is expensive to make and use. On the other hand I've never heard anything saying U.S. forces weren't using them or were using them far less because of how much the cost. Any sources? I'm curious.


Yes yet the US war machine has proven to be incompetent in winning modern wars for some decades now due to massive corruption in the Pentagon that is only interested in embezzling as much money as they can from the US military.

They're still pretty good at killing a shit load of people though...




F-22s won't do shit against revolutionary forces on the ground that are hiding from it and waiting till it passes before moving again.

Well he was talking about tanks, which I believe are a little harder to just up and hide from a highly advanced fitgher aircraft.

I think you might overestimate these "revolutionary forces" a little too. No doubt a small group of people might be able to hide from it (but im not 100% sure b/c I'm not fully aware of the F-22's technologies) but I doubt a larger force could so easily hide. What makes you think the F - 22 would be so ineffective anyway?

Just from personal experience anyway I know these fighter aircraft can come on to you without being heard. I've been near a navy base, I believe it was, watching fighter aircraft take off and fly around (they were F-18 or F-16 I think, can't remember). These things were insanely noisy taking off. But at one point one flew off into the clouds and was gone for a while, I looked around try to find it until it came tearing over my head. I never heard it coming until it was over me.

Not to mention the F-22 would be very hard to see at night as well.... but anyway, I'm just rambling now.

[Psy]

Indeed, but the technology is still pretty advanced. my worries would lie in drone warfare -

That can be defeated with jamming or even WWII era anti-air capabilities against modern anti-air they are sitting ducks which is why no drone has flown over a nation with modern anti-air weapons like Russia, China or even North Korea.


JDAM's are relatively cheap and effective, the U.S. uses them all of the time. But besides that I have heard that a lot of the laser guided munition is expensive to make and use. On the other hand I've never heard anything saying U.S. forces weren't using them or were using them far less because of how much the cost. Any sources? I'm curious.

They are using them but it is far from cost effective, in a large scale war the US will become totally bankrupted if it tried to use such weapon in a world war frequently.



They're still pretty good at killing a shit load of people though...

You don't win wars by killing people, you win war controlling strategic locations.




Well he was talking about tanks, which I believe are a little harder to just up and hide from a highly advanced fitgher aircraft.

Light tanks like the PT-76 did this constantly, they were able to even hide in buildings with ease due to small size, camouflage and decoys misdirecting reconnaissance away from its position.

To an advanced aircraft overhead all they see a building that is preventing heat the tank from showing up on thermal imaging and on the ground camouflage hides the tank from the eye till its ready to move or fire its gun.



I think you might overestimate these "revolutionary forces" a little too. No doubt a small group of people might be able to hide from it (but im not 100% sure b/c I'm not fully aware of the F-22's technologies) but I doubt a larger force could so easily hide. What makes you think the F - 22 would be so ineffective anyway?

Same reason it didn't work in Vietnam, you have a bird eye view that is only helpful if the enemy is out in the open, if the enemy doesn't wanted to be spotted from the air they can make it near impossible to do so if they stick to cover.

This is why satellites in space still can't confirm of deny a nation having a nuclear weapons program.



Just from personal experience anyway I know these fighter aircraft can come on to you without being heard. I've been near a navy base, I believe it was, watching fighter aircraft take off and fly around (they were F-18 or F-16 I think, can't remember). These things were insanely noisy taking off. But at one point one flew off into the clouds and was gone for a while, I looked around try to find it until it came tearing over my head. I never heard it coming until it was over me.

Not to mention the F-22 would be very hard to see at night as well.... but anyway, I'm just rambling now.

It doesn't matter if their target sticks to cover.

[Renegade Saint]

The fact that Psy thinks "Run away!" Monty Python style is a viable strategy against modern air to ground weaponry tells you all know you need to know about his grasp of military technology, techniques and strategy.


But all that's irrelevant, since a civil war is not how a revolution is going to happen in the 21st century in an advanced economic country with a powerful state. In fact, I can't think of a better way to undermine support for socialism than a long-term insurgency costing thousands (millions?) of lives. How popular is FARC?

The thing is, you don't need to resort to civil war if you have the masses of people behind you.

[Kitty_Paine]

You don't win wars by killing people, you win war controlling strategic locations.

I know, I was agreeing with you in saying that while the U.S. hasn't been very effective in winning "conflicts/wars" in the past while they have been efective at killing a lot of their "enemies".



Light tanks like the PT-76 did this constantly, they were able to even hide in buildings with ease due to small size, camouflage and decoys misdirecting reconnaissance away from its position.

To an advanced aircraft overhead all they see a building that is preventing heat the tank from showing up on thermal imaging and on the ground camouflage hides the tank from the eye till its ready to move or fire its gun.

Same reason it didn't work in Vietnam, you have a bird eye view that is only helpful if the enemy is out in the open, if the enemy doesn't wanted to be spotted from the air they can make it near impossible to do so if they stick to cover.

This is why satellites in space still can't confirm of deny a nation having a nuclear weapons program.

It doesn't matter if their target sticks to cover.

Well I constructed a long discussion in response but then it was all lost... damnit :glare:. So instead of retyping everything... I'm too frustrated at what happened to try, I'll just summarize, lol.

People and vehicles can't always stay in concealment and move effectively while concealed from aircraft. If this were possible aircraft wouldnt be nearly as effective as it is. The fact is you have to sacrifice stealth for speed sometimes, and sometimes there is just no effective concealment.

As far as the tanks hiding in buildings goes, I'm sure that is effective but tanks aren't always near buildings. Not to mention they aren't always ready to take such quick action, especially against fast moving aircraft that you may not hear coming. But anyway...

Most of your argument seems to be coming from vietnam and NVA related experiences and historical examples. But the U.S. in environment and citizens in nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam has dense jungle for easily concealed movement, the U.S. does not. Even though the U.S. does have some large mountain regions and large forests, we can't over look the thousands of square miles of flat land with little to no cover of any kind. The fact is Vietnam's envoronment provides far more natural cover than most of the United States would.

Not to mention the underground tunnels the NVA built to move more effectively. That was a huge factor for them avoiding aircraft detection. The U.S. has nothing like that, and because of the U.S.'s vast size and the time it takes to make something like that I really don't think anything similar to the cu chi tunnels would be made if a revolution were to happen. The tunnels were constructed years before the U.S.'s involvement.

And my last point, the people. You talk as if the people so easily avoiding these aircraft are trained soldiers or fighters. Are you assuming these are trained soldiers or defected U.S. troops? I don't think the average person with a little bit of soldiering know-how would be very lucky at avoiding aircraft all the time. The NVA were trained and well oraganized. They had been through a long past of conflict and hardening through combat (French Indochina War, etc.). The U.S.'s population lives in a very different world. A war would be very new to most people, they wouldn'e be nearly as effective as the average NVA soldier. But maybe I'm assuming something you didn't mean. If I did, I apologize. Feel free to correct me.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think I remember some military simulation thing where it turned out all that electronic warfare stuff wasn't so effective against more primitive sorts of opposition.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Another Psy "revolutionary army" thread, nice!

[black magick hustla]

i am a servant of the outer dark i will destroy them all. they will tremble at the sound of my foreign name and the shadow of my curly hair

[Psy]

I think I remember some military simulation thing where it turned out all that electronic warfare stuff wasn't so effective against more primitive sorts of opposition.
The point of electronic warfare is to wage war against a enemy's technology.




People and vehicles can't always stay in concealment and move effectively while concealed from aircraft. If this were possible aircraft wouldnt be nearly as effective as it is. The fact is you have to sacrifice stealth for speed sometimes, and sometimes there is just no effective concealment.

In Vietnam decoys were used, once aircraft attacks decoy targets it is easy for everyone in the area to know there are enemy aircraft in the area.




As far as the tanks hiding in buildings goes, I'm sure that is effective but tanks aren't always near buildings. Not to mention they aren't always ready to take such quick action, especially against fast moving aircraft that you may not hear coming. But anyway...

Well having tanks in the open with no air cover isn't really a good idea.




Most of your argument seems to be coming from vietnam and NVA related experiences and historical examples. But the U.S. in environment and citizens in nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam has dense jungle for easily concealed movement, the U.S. does not. Even though the U.S. does have some large mountain regions and large forests, we can't over look the thousands of square miles of flat land with little to no cover of any kind. The fact is Vietnam's envoronment provides far more natural cover than most of the United States would.

That is not really the epicenters where worker revolutions will most likely take place.



Not to mention the underground tunnels the NVA built to move more effectively. That was a huge factor for them avoiding aircraft detection. The U.S. has nothing like that, and because of the U.S.'s vast size and the time it takes to make something like that I really don't think anything similar to the cu chi tunnels would be made if a revolution were to happen. The tunnels were constructed years before the U.S.'s involvement.

You missed the fact drug cartels in Mexico are building subways into the USA to smuggle drugs? Along with building submarines to avoid defection from the US Coast Guard also both the subways and submarines are becoming more advances as the drug cartels engineers become more skilled.

And you think industrial workers of a revolution can't do this?




And my last point, the people. You talk as if the people so easily avoiding these aircraft are trained soldiers or fighters. Are you assuming these are trained soldiers or defected U.S. troops? I don't think the average person with a little bit of soldiering know-how would be very lucky at avoiding aircraft all the time. The NVA were trained and well oraganized. They had been through a long past of conflict and hardening through combat (French Indochina War, etc.). The U.S.'s population lives in a very different world. A war would be very new to most people, they wouldn'e be nearly as effective as the average NVA soldier. But maybe I'm assuming something you didn't mean. If I did, I apologize. Feel free to correct me.
I'm talking about trained solders, that would learn from defectors just like how the Red Army learned from defectors.

So in the case of Detroit 1967 it would be disgruntled Vietnam veterans educating workers on soldering rather grabbing a gun themselves and snipping the National Guard.

[citizen of industry]

Riots in one city (or even a few cities) do not a revolution make. Rolling in armor divisions is not an effective tactic against mass strikes. Mass strikes, mass occupations, mass mass protests, with some direct actions: these are the weapons of the working class. The idea that the US government will fall due to a 'revolutionary army' besting the US military is :laugh:

This! And this:


You seem to be missing a key point: in a liberal democracy you don't need a 'revolutionary army' if you have the people (don't confuse that point with electoral politics fetishism or reformism). They simply withdraw their consent (by striking) and occupy everything, from their workplaces to government buildings.

What's with the weird military fetishism? Or should I say tank fetishism? The US has army has, like, 8,000 of the best tanks in the world. Where are us striking and demonstrating workers going to get thousands of tanks, train ourselves on them and then hide them all? And even if we had them, I was under the impression that the tank was an offensive weapon. If we hide them all in cities what's to stop the army from just cutting the city off and laying siege? Or bombing the hell out of it and then sending in tank brigades of their own supported by infantry and going from building to building killing us all? This kind of conventional war you are advocating comes from warring imperial nation states with huge treasuries, not revolutionary workers. You can't go underground with a tank. It's really big, has a big gun, plows over everything with huge treads while making a "creak,creak, creak" sound and makes a really big "boom" sound when it fires.

Even if one were to advocate some kind of revolutionary army, I think the things in its favor would be sheer numbers, and the fact that the military is probably not capable of occupying all cities simultaneously. They could take one city but would have to abandon it and then it would be retaken. There is historical precedent for that, and in the US. And hopes that the soldiers would see the writing on the wall, get tired of killing their own people and switch sides. I don't think your hypothetical revolutionary army is going to rely on tank battles and employing superior jamming technology and stuff and besting the US military in open battle. And the city is where inferior armies go to die. The city is easily encircled and taken. You have to defend the approaches and the supply, and for that you need troops, and planes, and tanks, and artillery, all of the best calibre and in great numbers.

The city in developed capitalist nations is where to employ the methods mentioned by Renegade Saint, not the place to fantasize about Kursk and Stalingrad and lots of expensive weaponry.

[citizen of industry]

That can be defeated with jamming or even WWII era anti-air capabilities against modern anti-air they are sitting ducks which is why no drone has flown over a nation with modern anti-air weapons like Russia, China or even North Korea.


They are using them but it is far from cost effective, in a large scale war the US will become totally bankrupted if it tried to use such weapon in a world war frequently.


You don't win wars by killing people, you win war controlling strategic locations.



Light tanks like the PT-76 did this constantly, they were able to even hide in buildings with ease due to small size, camouflage and decoys misdirecting reconnaissance away from its position.

To an advanced aircraft overhead all they see a building that is preventing heat the tank from showing up on thermal imaging and on the ground camouflage hides the tank from the eye till its ready to move or fire its gun.


Same reason it didn't work in Vietnam, you have a bird eye view that is only helpful if the enemy is out in the open, if the enemy doesn't wanted to be spotted from the air they can make it near impossible to do so if they stick to cover.

This is why satellites in space still can't confirm of deny a nation having a nuclear weapons program.



It doesn't matter if their target sticks to cover.

My hypothetical situation with your revolutionary army in Detroit. If I was the commander of an army, and you and your revolutionary army were holed-up in buildings in Detroit, I would cut your supply line. Because thousands of people jammed in a tiny place like the center of a city need to eat, and the city can't produce food. Then you would have to either leave the city to defend your supply line, which would put you in a confrontation against me in the open field, where I would destroy you, or you could try and outlast me in the city with no food, while my soldiers would have beer and chocolate cake being driven to us by the truckload. I wouldn't bother going house-to-house rooting your guys out one by one like animals, because it would be far preferable for me to snack on beer and cake while waiting for you to give up or die. And I could keep my pretty little buildings in tact. We wouldn't even have to fight.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If I were the leader of a revolutionary army, I'd fly my Detroit-made B-2 bomber over every capitalist city, laying waste to their defenses. Then, when I'm overhead of the main den of bourgeois jackals, I'll unleash a 100 megaton bomb, which I'll ride down with a copy of Das Kapital in one hand and a red flag in the other, singing the International as I descend into fiery martyrdom.

[Psy]

What's with the weird military fetishism? Or should I say tank fetishism? The US has army has, like, 8,000 of the best tanks in the world.

The Abrams has no staying power, poor maneuverability and a massive logistical tail. Sure the Abrams will crush anyone stupid enough to get into a slugging match with them but the thing is you don't have to. You destroy the logistical tail of the Abrams and you effectively neutralize the Abrams as a threat as unlike diesel tanks the Abrams requires specialized jet fuel refueling trucks meaning it would be very possible for a enemy force to just blow them all up and the US Army would simply not have the means to operate the Abrams in any meaningful way.



Where are us striking and demonstrating workers going to get thousands of tanks, train ourselves on them and then hide them all?

Manufacture them, workers seize means of production then produce the means to wage war against capitalist armies. Training like I said before from defectors with military experience as for hiding them all, you are not going to have the all in one location, they will be spread out across the world as the revolutionary army expands to become a global army.



And even if we had them, I was under the impression that the tank was an offensive weapon.

Yes but that doesn't mean tanks are only a offensive weapon, they also a very good defensive weapon.



If we hide them all in cities what's to stop the army from just cutting the city off and laying siege?

The revolution thus the revolutionary army expanding beyond the city. For example the revolutionary army from Windsor Canada attacking the US Army sieging Detroit.



Or bombing the hell out of it and then sending in tank brigades of their own supported by infantry and going from building to building killing us all?

And how would they then generate surplus value? Oh would such atrocities prevent the revolution from spreading to engulf the world?



This kind of conventional war you are advocating comes from warring imperial nation states with huge treasuries, not revolutionary workers. You can't go underground with a tank. It's really big, has a big gun, plows over everything with huge treads while making a "creak,creak, creak" sound and makes a really big "boom" sound when it fires.

Revolutionary workers makes the weapons of imperialist armies. Also tanks since World War II have been used for ambushes.



Even if one were to advocate some kind of revolutionary army, I think the things in its favor would be sheer numbers, and the fact that the military is probably not capable of occupying all cities simultaneously. They could take one city but would have to abandon it and then it would be retaken. There is historical precedent for that, and in the US. And hopes that the soldiers would see the writing on the wall, get tired of killing their own people and switch sides. I don't think your hypothetical revolutionary army is going to rely on tank battles and employing superior jamming technology and stuff and besting the US military in open battle. And the city is where inferior armies go to die. The city is easily encircled and taken. You have to defend the approaches and the supply, and for that you need troops, and planes, and tanks, and artillery, all of the best calibre and in great numbers.

We are talking about mechanizing the labor revolutionary troops. Think of it this way, having sheer numbers is nice but having sheer numbers on top of modern weapons systems is even better.



The city in developed capitalist nations is where to employ the methods mentioned by Renegade Saint, not the place to fantasize about Kursk and Stalingrad and lots of expensive weaponry.
Expensive how? We are talking about the proletariat of the world seizing the means of production and gearing up for the war effort.