Would the U.S. Army fire on American civilians?

[techs]

Inspired by the situation in Iran and the Diebold paperless ballot fiasco.

If a candidate for President of the US was way ahead in the polls and yet lost by a landslide and there were election irregularities like electronic voting without a paper ballots controversy, would the US Army shoot protesters, who were peaceful, in the streets?
EDIT: With real bullets, not rubber ones.

(note that this thread only has become relevant since the prohibition on using the Army against American citizens has become essentially worthless)

 

[bdude]

They shot at kent state.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: bdude
They shot at kent state.

Wasn't that the National Guard?
I'm talking regular Army.

 

[DerekWilson]

depending on the size, scope and intensity of the protest and if it got out of hand, sure they would -- with rubber pellets.

a lot more would have to go to shit for them to break out the 9mm hollow points on US citizens who were demonstrating no matter how much it disrupted society without putting anyone in immediate harm and without the crowd firing on the LEOs first.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: DerekWilson
depending on the size, scope and intensity of the protest and if it got out of hand, sure they would -- with rubber pellets.

a lot more would have to go to shit for them to break out the 9mm hollow points on US citizens who were demonstrating no matter how much it disrupted society without putting anyone in immediate harm and without the crowd firing on the LEOs first.

Updated to reflect real bullets, not rubber ones.

 

[Ackmed]

Now with "Pole"? Is there a stripper I am missing somewhere?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Now with "Pole"? Is there a stripper I am missing somewhere?

I dunno, now he's talking about rubbers. This thread may need to be moved to L&R.

 

[Jaskalas]

In the church of government, its zealots will follow orders.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs
would the US Army shoot protesters, who were peaceful, in the streets?

I don't think so.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

We can go back further when Doug MacAuthur burned out the depression era Veteran's movement, we now have Posse comatadus laws that cramp that style.

Will it ever come to a current Iranian style protests where our government needs the army to prop itself up? Who knows, thus far the American sheeple are too apathetic.

 

[cwjerome]

It's hard to imagine regular army in that situation... but peaceful protesters? Seriously doubt it, I'd hate to be the officer making that call.

 

[JSt0rm]

they already have so I'm saying yes it could happen again based on history.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
they already have so I'm saying yes it could happen again based on history.

exactly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It would have to be one heck of a protest.

 

[cyclohexane]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
they already have so I'm saying yes it could happen again based on history.

exactly.

this.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
they already have so I'm saying yes it could happen again based on history.

exactly.

this.

Well we had slavery, I guess it could happen again based on history. A slight stretch but the basic idea is there... it was a different "time and place" in history and things change.

And saying "yes" something could happen isn't very precise, "yes" a meteorite could slam into my house tomorrow. So I can agree with you guys that it could happen, but I'll also add that it is extremely unlikely to happen anytime soon. If something like this were to happen it would almost certainly be a scandalous fuckup at the lowest levels, and not some crazed generals.

 

[Zorba]

I've thought about this a lot lately, but I think if the Army was ordered to fire on US civilians the vast majority of solders would do it.

 

[bamacre]

This is actually the reason I strongly opposed offering citizenship for military service.

 

[jpeyton]

Immorality hasn't stopped them from obeying orders in the past.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Knew a guy who was an officer in the Mississippi National Guard, ironically enough he was enrolled as a student at Ole Miss during the riots there back in the 60s. He was activated, sent from Ole Miss to the coast to regroup with his troops, then redeployed to "contain" his fellow students at Ole Miss. He has never spoken about that or being in the national guard, knowledge comes from his wife (who was at Ole Miss at the time as well) springing from a question regarding a photo of him in uniform. Bad things happened there...

I do not doubt soldiers would open fire on civilians if sufficiently provoked by an violent mob. I doubt most officers would obey orders from above to fire upon a crowd of unarmed civilians, especially if they are from the same state.

 

[Craig234]

We'd like to think not, but there are reasons to say they would, including:

- the world has along history of nations getting military to do this, including in democracies with similar situations to the US as far as expecting soldiers not to.

- soldiers can be in a very isolated environment and told things to demonize the group they're firing on.

- They could hand pick soldiers who would be more likely to for the first occurances.

The initial resistance seems to greatly decrease once it's already happening, and to refuse would make you 'stand out', easier to 'go along'.

I do think there would be some significant resistance within the military if it was seen as unjustified by them though, and that some would refuse.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
they already have so I'm saying yes it could happen again based on history.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Craig234
We'd like to think not, but there are reasons to say they would, including:

- the world has along history of nations getting military to do this, including in democracies with similar situations to the US as far as expecting soldiers not to.

- soldiers can be in a very isolated environment and told things to demonize the group they're firing on.

- They could hand pick soldiers who would be more likely to for the first occurances.

The initial resistance seems to greatly decrease once it's already happening, and to refuse would make you 'stand out', easier to 'go along'.

I do think there would be some significant resistance within the military if it was seen as unjustified by them though, and that some would refuse.

I agree with you except I must comment on this part.

In the type of situation that would require shooting of American's, those Army members would most likely be shot for treason.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: bamacre
This is actually the reason I strongly opposed offering citizenship for military service.

Young people from all over the globe are joining up to fight for the future.

They're doing their part. Are you?

Service guarantees citizenship.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Some would, some wouldn't. Most would have varying levels of required provocation to instigate firing. I'd like to think in obviously illegal/immoral engagements that enough would refuse to more or less cripple the military.

Tell you one thing for sure though...the day it happens, revolution comes. The death toll would be astronomical.