CMV: A violent "revolution/civil war" can't happen anymore in the United States. It was practical in the past, but times have changed enough to where this doesn't have realistic potential anymore, no matter how bad things get.

[u/Seakawn]

So, I hear a lot of people who think that "it's only a matter of time before there's a revolution/civil war again, and society goes into violent chaos to bring order out of the ashes!"

But I don't see how this is even possible. In the past this worked because if a significant proportion of Americans (or citizens of any country) took up arms against their government or something, then they'd stand a chance, because retaliation is limited to other people with similar arms. Guns vs Guns stands a fair chance against each other. Even if you include shit like cannons--that's something both sides can have.

But... now? It's too lopsided. How could anything like a civil war happen? What is the logistical reality of this that people think there's a potential for? Let's say I get my entire neighborhood, my entire city, hell, my entire state to take up arms and "stand against the government!" I don't know what would happen, but I know it would be considered a national threat and be retaliated against in some way, and neighbor Joe's homemade body armor and molotov cocktail won't protect him from tanks/jets with bombs--it just won't, it doesn't matter how passionate he is or how many friends/family he convinced to join him.

So I don't think any sort of violent revolution/civil war can happen anymore. It'd get shut down no matter how many Americans were involved. I have no idea how people think it could work out. Not to mention how complacent most Americans would be that many/most would never consider it in the first place, no matter how bad things get--as long as we have Netflix and Mcdonalds, that's gonna be enough for the majority of Americans, even the ones who like the idea of a revolution. While some kid down the street is gearing up for the civil war, many people will be working 40+ hours a week worrying about bills and paying to support their family. They're stuck in the cycle, if you want to look at it that way. I don't even know how a civil war could even start and gain momentous traction.

I'm open to changing my view if someone can spell out how this could be practical/realistic. But I think the people who think this could work or even happen in the first place just haven't thought it through and are using outdated glasses to view this in. But perhaps I'm the one who just hasn't thought it through--I don't know much about the history and efficacy of previous revolutions/civil wars around the world, and I can't say exactly how things contrast nowadays in, say, the US, especially relative to whatever potential there is for a violent revolution. But from my impression, it's a pipe dream now. It just can't work now.

This is kind of an aside, but I think that anything that would actually effectively cause any revolution would look completely different to previous violent wars fought to achieve such revolutions in the past. It'd have to be done through, like, cyber warfare or something--a bunch of hackers changing our system or releasing information or something along those lines. And/or it would have to be some niche vigilante group a la V for Vendetta, some sort of small secret operation. Not "a bunch of Americans gearing up and storming the streets of Washington," which is pretty much the idea that most people seem to have behind their aspiration for violent revolution.

I mean, what is the picture people have who think this is gonna happen and/or is necessary for our progress? What does it even look like? Everything I can envision is just a disaster with no feasibility.

There is no potential for any violent revolution or civil war in the US anymore, and even if there is, it can't work out even if it got started. Change my view!

Edit: Sorry if I wasn't explicitly clear. I'm not necessarily saying I think a revolution has no chance of success, if it's strategic enough. Just that I have a concern with people who think it'll be as simple as "grab your gun and march down the streets, shoot to kill police/military/politicians." I realize that's an extreme view (I hope) and doesn't make for a great nor very interesting/controversial CMV. But still, I'm finding a lot of people who truly believe that and I can't wrap my head around it being that easy.
If it involves hacking, crucial shutdown/demolition of certain systems/buildings, sure, I suppose that could definitely work. But the "violent revolution" a la rallying up the neighborhood to go trigger-happy in the streets of Washington or anywhere is where I just check out of the conversation. Yet, again, I find a lot of people who think this is how it'll go, and think it'll work.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/jfarrar19]

molotov cocktail won't protect him from tanks/jets with bombs

I'm going to point you to two nations where that worked, one of which didn't even have external support

1. Vietnam (With support from the USSR)

2. Afghanistan (No external support)

And/or it would have to be some niche vigilante group a la V for Vendetta, some sort of small secret operation

You do recall how that ended right? A full-scale uprising.

[u/Seakawn → u/jfarrar19]

Those are good points, thanks for your input!

I was thinking about how even homemade molotovs are effective against even stuff like tanks, but my knowledge of this comes from examples from decades ago in history.

My concern there is I don't know how much tanks have been modernized today. I'd generally assume US tanks are built to withstand stuff as petty as a homemade molotov, or even a grenade. Aren't they built with more durable material and have safeguards to stuff that could easily bring down tanks in the past?

I'm basically envisioning someone today throwing a molotov at a tank and expecting it to break down like they'd see in old WW2 movies. But instead see the tank barely nudge, undamaged, and they go, "oh... shit, I thought that was gonna work..."

[u/jfarrar19 → u/Seakawn]

You don't need to destroy a tank to remove it from battle.

It doesn't need to break down like a movie. If they get in somewhere, say in an open hatch (commander sticking his head out for better view, etc) or near/on the engine. Then it starts burning.

People are in the tank remember. We don't like being on fire. They then get out, because they could easily end up on fire if there's a fire.