Could there be an active rebellion in the US?

[Stravo]

Would it be possible for a rebel organization like the ones in Central and South America to exist within the US? Would it be possible for a rebel group to have bases scattered throughout the country and armed well enough to threaten control of cities. I'm not talking about those shitty milita groups pretending to be soldiers I'm talking about real hardcore rebels, ex militray with access to some heavy weapons and a very sympathetic populace.

Or is the US internal security and weapons so overwhelming that such groups could not exist. Would these groups be forced to be based out of Canada and Mexico and raid into the country?

Ignore why there would be such an organized resitance just focus on whether it would be possible or is the US rebellion proof aside from full on insurrection.

[aerius]

The Second American Revolution

[Morilore]

That was interesting... I really doubt, however, that a military junta could really be so "benign" as AESAR is presented, at least in the long term.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm guessing if it's going to happen, it will be in Utah with a Mormon Revolution. Seriously.

[Joe]

The Second American Revolution

Ah, you beat me to the punch.

[Stormbringer]

Or is the US internal security and weapons so overwhelming that such groups could not exist. Would these groups be forced to be based out of Canada and Mexico and raid into the country?

Under anything like the present conditions, no. The simple fact is that the National Guard, and worse come to worse federal troops, could put such a thing down relatively easily with in the US.

Ignore why there would be such an organized resitance just focus on whether it would be possible or is the US rebellion proof aside from full on insurrection.

Part of the reason that they happen is social conditions so with out dealing with those it's missing half the equation.

[Sea Skimmer]

Under anything like the present conditions, no. The simple fact is that the National Guard, and worse come to worse federal troops, could put such a thing down relatively easily with in the US.

No they couldn't. The US is a lot more accessible then says Columbia, but it is still a huge area to control. Fully mobilized with all reserve and guard units the US Army can field only about 1 million men. Even with the full backing of the police it would still be a monumental task to just begin securing vital infrastructure and resources from attacks. Such forces would be able to smash any large concentrations of rebel troops, but that is not the same as ending such a rebellion.

Look at the effort it took to catch the DC Sniper. Now imagine if fifty such incidents where going at the same time, while the police are also busy dealing with a thousand possibul bomb threats a day, and a couple real bombs. There would need to be an immense increase in police and military forces just to keep pace with all the overtime. We might not get to be like Israel, but Northern Ireland, easily. The fact that the US economy is so heavily dependent on long distance road travel and that so many guns are already in the country would make things all the worse.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would it be possible for a rebel organization like the ones in Central and South America to exist within the US? Would it be possible for a rebel group to have bases scattered throughout the country and armed well enough to threaten control of cities.

Certainly a large rebel organization could exist within the US. Though it would take a very long time and some factors beyound the control of either side to get things to the point that control of cities might be contested.

I'm not talking about those shitty milita groups pretending to be soldiers I'm talking about real hardcore rebels, ex militray with access to some heavy weapons and a very sympathetic populace.

Or is the US internal security and weapons so overwhelming that such groups could not exist. Would these groups be forced to be based out of Canada and Mexico and raid into the country?

Most forces would be based inside of the US, and probably within major urban areas. Catching supplies and equipment and conducting training in remote areas has its value. But the resistance must keep its self close to the general population for concealment, logistical support and because that is where the prime targets area. There might not be foreign bases, as remote as the US's land boards might be in places they really aren't very good locations for such things, but the resistance would be sending agents overseas to arrange for armament shipments and other support. It's likely that drug smuggling and dealing would be a major part of sustaining the guerrillas. And the same routes and methods which get drugs into the country now would bring in weapons, particularly lightweight RPG-7 style weapons. The lack of that sort of weapon be a major impediment to the resistances ability to fight openly against US federal troops. The RPG-7 is one of the greatest equalizers ever when it comes to this kind of fighting.

[Stormbringer]

No they couldn't. The US is a lot more accessible then says Columbia, but it is still a huge area to control. Fully mobilized with all reserve and guard units the US Army can field only about 1 million men. Even with the full backing of the police it would still be a monumental task to just begin securing vital infrastructure and resources from attacks. Such forces would be able to smash any large concentrations of rebel troops, but that is not the same as ending such a rebellion.

Look at the effort it took to catch the DC Sniper. Now imagine if fifty such incidents where going at the same time, while the police are also busy dealing with a thousand possibul bomb threats a day, and a couple real bombs. There would need to be an immense increase in police and military forces just to keep pace with all the overtime. We might not get to be like Israel, but Northern Ireland, easily. The fact that the US economy is so heavily dependent on long distance road travel and that so many guns are already in the country would make things all the worse.

I think, at least, that Stravo's talking about active paramilitary armies and not simply guerilla fighting. He's talking about taking cities, which is definitely not conducive to guerilla warfare. Against something like that the US military probably could put them down.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think, at least, that Stravo's talking about active paramilitary armies and not simply guerilla fighting. He's talking about taking cities, which is definitely not conducive to guerilla warfare. Against something like that the US military probably could put them down.

Armies like that don't spring up out of nothing; unless a major chunk of the military is engaged in a coup that turns ugly and springs a civil war. They form as a result of the final stages of a guerrilla war, and they will not form until the conditions for those stages exist. So you cannot say "well the US military would put them down" because they wouldn't exist while the US military looks the way it does now. But 5-10 years down the line, when the US military is low on high tech equipment and has disbanded most of its heavy mechanized forces and radically cut back air and naval forces all to help pay for and man a vast army of infantry and police, well things would be a lot different. Given enough time and determination on the part of the guerrillas and the public that supports them and we could see federal forces having lost control of say Baltimore and rockets raining down around the white house on a near daily basis. That's not likely to happen, but it certainly could. Espically when you have a scenario in this in which the cause of the insurgency doesn't need to be explained.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Furthermore, cities are usually the best places for guerrillas. Obstacles can be easily made, weapons improvised, and there are masses of places for hiding in, things that can slow down an enemy advance, etc, alternate routes to reach various locations. Even I thought we'd have two thousand or more deaths taking Baghdad in the initial stage of the war. It really was a completely unexpected victory. What's more typical of city fighting is what when in Grozny, or Sarajevo. Another very good example is the fighting in Budapest during the Hungarian revolt against the Soviets. Some people flooded a street with dishsoap and trapped tanks on it, their treads spinning helplessly. Another time a live trolley wire was lowered onto a tank, roasting the crew inside.

[Trytostaydead]

In terms of political climate? No, not yet. Though I am beginning to see a deeper and deeper rift between Democrats and Republicans again. Last time we went through a Republican who the democrats reallly realllly didn't like we had the costliest war in US history. Though things like the Patriot Act, and PA II are really riling up those independent folks, and pissing off a lot of others these days.. not to mention Iraq.

[Durandal]

Why is this in OT?

Off to N&P.

[Ender]

It has happened before. I don't think it is likely to happen again though, if for no other reason then there would be no large backers for it. In the civil war there was considerable money and economic motive behind the rebellion. Today, no. It would disrupt trade internally and internationally. Bad idea.

[PainRack]

Furthermore, cities are usually the best places for guerrillas. Obstacles can be easily made, weapons improvised, and there are masses of places for hiding in, things that can slow down an enemy advance, etc, alternate routes to reach various locations. Even I thought we'd have two thousand or more deaths taking Baghdad in the initial stage of the war. It really was a completely unexpected victory. What's more typical of city fighting is what when in Grozny, or Sarajevo. Another very good example is the fighting in Budapest during the Hungarian revolt against the Soviets. Some people flooded a street with dishsoap and trapped tanks on it, their treads spinning helplessly. Another time a live trolley wire was lowered onto a tank, roasting the crew inside.

I disagree. Che Guavera once stated that the city is the graveyard of a guerilla, and there are certain factors to bear him out. Unless you're talking about smallville, as opposed to metropolis and other major cities.

1. Security forces are centralised in cities. The security forces in cities are always more numerous than in the outback or rural areas. This in itself is detrimental to the continued surivival of guerilla elements. Unlike common belief, while it is extremely easy to set up an attack beforehand, forsenics and detective work has advanced to such a level that any attacks can and are traced to their owners.

2. Easy access of government resources. The network of roads and other transportation links may facillate your smuggling of weapons and explosives for an guerilla operation, however, it also facillate the transportation and movement of government forces, and also allows them to easily shut down arteries and routes of movement.

3. Database infomation. A city offers more infomation databases for a detective to track a person, his activities and purchases.

4. Difficulty of identifying goverment forces. In large cities, government operations against your own is difficult to identify, as the same factors that allow you to merge into the populace is also available to the government.


5. Lastly, in the operations that you noted, these were in the last stages of a guerilla conflict, where control of a city was in the hands of the rebels, thus conceding the advantage to the enemy. Even so, the sheer likelyhood of government forces having access to more advanced and powerful military assets make a conventional resistance unlikely to succeed. If anything, a simple siege of the city will cause such a movement to die out.

[Coyote]

...I'm talking about real hardcore rebels, ex militray with access to some heavy weapons and a very sympathetic populace(~~emphasis added~~ Coyote).

That part right there, whith the red, is the crux of the argument. Without the support of the population, any attempt to initiate a revolution in the US is doomed to failure. People would be turned in to the authorities, denied help if they were wounded, denied food and water, and in many cases the population would join the fight against them (although it would be unecessary, as the military would be more than a match).

But if this rebel group has widespread public support, active support (not just passive 'look-the-other-way' feelings) then they have a chance, probably because many 'first responders' (police, National Guard) would be sympathetic, and perhaps some military units.

Force-on-force, guerrillas in the US are doomed. The tide turns only in the amorphous realm of the political angle and public sentiment. What does the US government look like at the time of the rebellion? What angle are the guerrillas pushing?

There are Nazi militias out there now that have the structure you describe-- the "White Rangers" comes to mind, an underground paramilitary group in the Northwest made up of former military. But they don't dare make a move because they know the US public would turn on them.

But if the US gov't has become some brutal tyranny, and the rebels promise freedom, liberty, etc (and the public believes them), then that changes things.

[Guardsman Bass]

Remember the last feeble attempt to overthrow the U.S.? No, I'm not talking about the Civil War; I'm talking about the wackos who wanted to set up an Aryan state in the Northern U.S.

As for setting up a rebellion, I think the police/military/National Guard presence is too strong for something like this to build up into a revolutionary army- the discontents would have been courted by politicians and bought off long before war.