Advanced Weapons

[eyedrop]

As the society develops more and more advanced weapons, won't it be easier for a few people to keep the society under control? As warfare comes more and more down too equipment and the rulers get the equipment.

Try to picture a few hundred years into the future and imagine how hard a revolution would be without the goodwill of the army.

Maybe they will even have sorted out a way to deal with guerilla warfare, which is our only hope. All the revolutions in the past have always contained some fighting and I wouldn't like to see the odds of the people even lower.

Maybe we have less time than we think?



Just a thought project, allthough I don't see how they realisticly can stop a sudden mass strike, withfactories seizures.

[NovelGentry]

As the society develops more and more advanced weapons, won't it be easier for a few people to keep the society under control?

What you seem to be ignoring is that without the working class they will whither and die. Weapons or no weapons, we make their food... we run their power plants to power their weapons, etc..etc...etc..

The power is, was, and always will be in our hands, we just have to realize how to flex it.

Maybe they will even have sorted out a way to deal with guerilla warfare, which is our only hope. All the revolutions in the past have always contained some fighting and I wouldn't like to see the odds of the people even lower.

I'm not sure that guerrilla warfare IS our only hope, if it even is a hope in advanced countries like the US. It makes sense for certain areas, perhaps even the entire US if it is spread over the whole country. But any concentrated form of it would be wiped off the map in no time. This isn't Cuba.

Read Che's book, Che himself would admit that it wouldn't work here. I believe he actually says, possibly not in the book, but somewhere, that he does not disagree that some adaptation of it could work, but surely not guerilla warfare in it's strictest sense. We need something new, something adapted, using similar tactics but employing certain measures to ensure the safety of our forces. For example, the "cover of night" flies out the window when you have a helicopter flying 100 feet over you with thermal sensors who tell ground troops exactly where you are and from which direction to come in.

[eyedrop]

Read Che's book, Che himself would admit that it wouldn't work here. I believe he actually says, possibly not in the book, but somewhere, that he does not disagree that some adaptation of it could work, but surely not guerilla warfare in it's strictest sense. We need something new, something adapted, using similar tactics but employing certain measures to ensure the safety of our forces. For example, the "cover of night" flies out the window when you have a helicopter flying 100 feet over you with thermal sensors who tell ground troops exactly where you are and from which direction to come in.

This was what I was trying to imply, that a smaller army can suppress more people, hence fewer people will control more.


Besides it was just some blabbering shit, contradicted myself on the end :angry:

Stupid drugs and insomia.

[cormacobear]

I completely agree. Ipointed it out a few weeks ago argueing that us gun ownership laws were redundant. The army has sattelite and artillery, aircraft, they can destroy and pocket of armed resistance if their willing to pay the human toll. In the case they are, having guns won't matter.

the U.S. has already begun a new arms race with Russia when it came out thety planned to begin work on smaller, more feasibly useable nuclear weopons.

what kind ass face would work on a project like that

[Militant]

Originally posted by eyedrop@Oct 7 2004, 07:28 PM
As the society develops more and more advanced weapons, won't it be easier for a few people to keep the society under control? As warfare comes more and more down too equipment and the rulers get the equipment.

Try to picture a few hundred years into the future and imagine how hard a revolution would be without the goodwill of the army.

Maybe they will even have sorted out a way to deal with guerilla warfare, which is our only hope. All the revolutions in the past have always contained some fighting and I wouldn't like to see the odds of the people even lower.

Maybe we have less time than we think?



Just a thought project, allthough I don't see how they realisticly can stop a sudden mass strike, withfactories seizures.

Urban guerilla warfare would be the workers best friend. It's occurred in its modern sense since the Italian Campaign of WWII, and has proven to be a tactical nightmare ever since. Look at Iraq, the best army in the world tied up by 25,000 guerillas. Look at Mogiudistu were some of the best troops in the world (US army Rangers, Delta Force) were overrun by untrained militia fighters, who inflicted 80% causalities.

But this would only be step one for the revolution. What would hopefully happen is localized fighting in the urban centers, which would spark mass protests, aka overt shows of popular support for the guerillas. And hopefully, the army would have a "holly shit!" moments, relieze that they are on the wrong side of this one. And that night desert from the army, not to our-side nessacery, but decide it would be for the best that they not be in the army barracks when its announced the regime has fled the country.

In this ideal scenario, the army decides to disappear into the night, rather then fight for a crumbling government. Because they would remember the first maxim of being a mercenary. "collapsed governments pay no wages". The actually fighting, while doubtlessly costly for the workers, regardless of how "urbanized" the guerilla warfare is, trained and well armed troops are very tough, would be symbolic.

Of course, the army could decide to make a last stand to fight for those wages, which would be bloody as hell, but I hope they remember the second maxim of being a mercenary, "no fee's worth dying for.