• yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Nukes can be used in various ways though, vaporizing a city would be quite the way up the escalation ladder.

    I don’t have a study to cite, obviously, but I believe military threats can be extremely effective.

    Start with detonating a nuke in the middle of nowhere as threat. If that doesn’t have the desired result, an EMP blast above a target city could be the next step. And so on and so forth.

    Whenever guns are mentioned, I’m just reminded of how the US usually acts in case a single cop is killed:

    After Matthews stumbled out of the house, a SWAT team – unaware that Kahl was dead – began firing thousands of rounds at the house, eventually setting it ablaze by pouring diesel fuel down the house’s chimney. Kahl’s burned remains were found the following day.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Kahl

    Sure, he was a far right extremist and his death has probably bettered the world. Yet it proves that the amount of firepower usually determines the result.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      They can do that to individuals, or even small, localized organizations (MOVE bombing comes to mind). But overwhelming force fails to work once the enemy is organized, can change locations and hide with comrades, etc. That’s why for any reasonable leftists guns are important, but not the be-all end-all. That’s organization. Repression and COIN has many faces, and open mass violence is but the last of them.

      Modern COIN (when done right) is all about eroding popular support for the revolution. As long as the majority of civilians sympathize with the cause, it’s next to impossible to militarily defeat an insurrection. And bigger guns are of limited use for that, what matters is who you aim them at