Hacker News Reader

Comment by awinder | Hacker News Reader

It honestly shocks me when people think that the individual still has this much power. The power of government has changed a bit since the 1700s, unless people plan of acquiring a large fleet of planes and tanks, this is just farsical.

View on HN

I recall Vietnam managing to survive the US Army despite lacking planes and tanks. Holding land ultimately requires boots on the ground, so unless the government plans to engage in total war against an insurrection (mass bomb American cities), guerrilla will be possible.

It's also highly likely a portion of the army would defect if things get that far, making it less a revolution and more a civil war.

In my experience Americans get (rightfully) nervous just by the presence of police officers, the thought of protesting or even talking about politics. A US conflict involving guns is more likely to resemble Cambodia than Vietnam.

That's true. The situation needs to get very dire before random Americans are willing to take up arms.

Personally, I think a civil war is likelier than a revolution, due to the army dividing. Though to be clear, both seem rather unlikely.

I'm pretty surprised when people think the US government is essentially omnipotent. Look how poorly they fared against a bunch of people living in dirt houses and caves with rusted Soviet rifles. It's easy to win when you can just steamroll a country, but it's far harder when you need to balance the need for support & legitimacy from the non-fighting majority.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10752635#10753894

You should read my comment from a year ago that addressed why the situation would be much more complicated, and certainly not "farcical".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com