> A populace unarmed is a populace at the mercy of the Government.
Well, in this day and age, the only difference is that armed resistance to tyranny can at least die fighting, rather than dying with their hands tied behind their backs.
Not exactly the ONLY difference. An armed populace can prevail against a despotic government. Its a fallacy that a military can easily crush an armed citizenry.
An F-16 can certainly drop a JDAM on an area with active armed resistance. But it becomes a very different game when attacking their own people. With decent intel, That F-16 pilot could be tragically carjacked and murdered when fueling his car. He might open a letter and find photos of his children at the park with their mom.
The point, is that an armed populace is very very deadly and not at all to be trifled with. This doesn’t even consider that the more brutal the depotic government’s crackdown, the more widespread resentment they create.
Also consider this, how effective would a military be when its war factories, repair depots, MRE factories, Ammo factories, etc are all within the combat zone?
I often hear how an armed populace is helpless against a modern military, i suspect war-colleges know differently.
Not to mention that the iranian military doesn’t even approach the capability of ours. In truth the US Military would have a nightmare of a problem in containing an American population in revolt.
The Iranian military would find it impossible. (if they were armed)
And militaries have an alarming habit of joining revolts. IE,,,Yeltsin standing in the tank as they stopped the Gorby symapthizing communists trying to take back control. Citizen militaries are a bad problem for despots.