You’d think that an armed protest group would mean that the government reacts with _less_ force? Rather than simply deploying an appropriate amount of force to stop them? Because the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA, and there is no way a government would set a precedent that all you need to make it capitulate is wave a gun around.
I’m not saying that the outcome would be the protesters would not be successful, in saying that the government would roll in the tanks immediately and without hesitation.
> the simple fact is that the government will win in the game of “who has more guns and power”, just as it would in the USA
I do not actually agree with the premise that, in this modern day, governments can no longer be overthrown. Civil wars are not won on the basis of "who started with more guns?".
Most countries you’re thinking of as counterexamples don’t have an equivalent to Air Force One (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator) or nuclear submarines with SLBMs (= near-complete invulnerability for said dictator’s hard power.) Nothing a militia does storming US land civil or military infrastructure would matter to a US dictator, any more than it would if a foreign military did so. The US military domestic defence system was designed under the assumption that this is exactly the type of attack a foreign military would try, in fact—convincing US citizens (and members of the US military!) to foment a coup, the way the US foments coups in other countries.
Basically, the US president is in the constant implicit position of being able to hold the entire US hostage from a flying doom fortress† like some kind of supervillain. The only people who can really stop a “crazy president” scenario are people either high up in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would 1. Have the authorization to be in the president’s presence during DEFCON 1, and then 2. Have the personal trust/authority to tell the president’s bodyguards to buzz off for a minute.
† The “doom fortress” part applies more to the subs than to AF1, but if you treat the two as a unit, it works.
There have been inquests into what would happen in event of US civil war. Some projections see >40% of people immediately defecting from the government, many with high level clearances. At least in the case of the US the nation ceases to exist the moment it is in civil war.
But that is kind of besides the point. A lot of people are arguing "they may have overwhelming force, so roll over and give them what they want." No thanks?
I’m assuming your inquests are about a US civil war between a controlling minority and a resisting majority?
The more interesting scenario to consider, IMHO, is a civil war between a controlling but “not the US” majority, and a resisting minority. For example: what would happen if there were a modern Red Scare, but one with a basis in reality—i.e., if somehow >50% of the US (including our political leaders) were subverted by China, became believers not just in Communism but in the CCP’s propaganda about Communism necessitating political unification and erasure of separate cultural identity, and so the belief that the US should volunteer to be annexed+absorbed by China?
If the majority of the US believed that... what should the rest of us do, at that point, to stop this from happening? Is the correct answer just “the US is a democratic nation, so if the majority of the population wants the US to stop being a democracy, that’s the ‘democratic choice’, and if you believe in the ‘power of democracy’, you should support it”?
I'll see if I can find it. The formulation was, I think, like you described; the rural states were defending from a majority rule from more populous coastal states.
The US is not a democracy and you have just outlined why. Small autonomous regions were created to limit external influence and allow people to live their lives in peace. A lot of stuff now happens on the national level that was never meant to happen on the national level.
The United States is a democracy. Democracy does not mean only direct democracy. Representative democracy, democratic republics, and federalism are forms of government compatible with democracy.
I just figured that hundreds of years ago, everyone just agreed that democracy was a good thing, so let's define what we do as democracy. After some time the word's meaning matches what we do.
The first link implies that somewhat, but I would guess we need a historian to map the meaning over time.
"By Dawn's Early Light" is a movie with James Earl Jones as "Alice" the general aboard an EC-135 carrying out the "Looking Glass" mission (a 24/7 airborne command and control, now obsoleted) after a surprise attack. Jones' character decides to ram Air Force One to eliminate the hawkish Secretary of the Interior who has assumed the role of President - and thus resolve a deadlock so that the actual President (who has survived, badly wounded and unable to prove his identity to those aboard Air Force One) can countermand US forces and prevent a retaliatory strike which would inevitably cause World War III.
It's made for TV but I thought it did a surprisingly good job. I don't know whether you actually could chase and collide with the plane normally designated Air Force One in an EC-135, but certainly I'd bet on military pilots to give it their best shot if their commander explained the consequences otherwise.
Can an EC-135 escape the US’s own best air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles† being launched in a single mass-bombardment toward it with full penaids, by craft running the US’s best ECCM? Because, whatever they’re nominally flying, half the point of AF1 is aerial territory denial around the principal craft, so I’d assume they’re kitted out just for that task. Pretty hard to ram.
† Presumably, doctrine for a “Looking Glass” mission would have AF1 plan flight paths that bring them near still-executive-controlled surface missile batteries. Unsure if anything before a modern 5G craft could bring those batteries directly under its targeting control, though, rather than relying on the pilot making contact with living hands on the ground.
You probably could not, unless you set your EC-135 up way ahead of AF1 and took a crazy pursuit angle and timed the impact perfectly. The maximum speeds of the two planes are within 10mph of each other (at least, a base C-135 and a base 747. I'm sure there's some variance between those and an EC-135 and AF1 due to equipment loadouts and whatnot).
Hm, you don't need a crazy pursuit angle if you're way up ahead. Just use your time advantage to climb until you've exceeded AF1's altitude. Now, in a shallow dive, your speed will exceed AF1's.
> But the Beijing government is not going to be overthrown from Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very small and very far away from Beijing.
Hong Kong can't much influence whether Tianjin is ruled from Beijing or not. But it can influence whether Hong Kong is ruled from Beijing! Being far away makes it hard for Hong Kong to reach Beijing, and it also makes it hard for Beijing to reach Hong Kong.
True, but the US has more helicopters than the Soviets, and the Taliban don’t have Stingers anymore, and they’ll still be there long after the US has quit
Government would almost certainly lose against the armed population of US. You may be able to convince anti riot forces to use some kind of force against the protesters as long as it doesn't end up in huge bloodbath. You will not convince the army to shot their own citizens in their own towns though.
I’m not saying that the outcome would be the protesters would not be successful, in saying that the government would roll in the tanks immediately and without hesitation.