It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American Coup D'Etat.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Could there be a military overthrow of the United States Government? How close has such an event come to being a reality? What would it take and who would be the players?

I was out surfing the web and came across an article in Harpers that brought together several experts from various fields to discuss just this issue. I found it to be quite informative on the subject so decided to pass it along. I hope you enjoy it.

Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Nice read. I like this quote.



I've raised this point before with military audiences: Do you really think you can control New York City without the cooperation of 40,000 New York police officers? And what about Idaho, with all those militia groups? Do you think you can control Idaho? I'm not even going to talk about Texas.


Hahhaha!

That's right. I can't even begin to imgaine the hell of a time they'd have trying to take over Texas. It'd be like trying to herd tens of millions of fully-armed ill-tempered cats into a giant bath tub and getting them to stay there.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I don't think that US will ever have military uprising, is not in the nature of our military, training, upbringing and ethics to do that.

No, if we are not happy with our government that is why we hold elections every 4 years.

Even when most people think that two party system is the only choices, and it makes no difference, at least it gives a sense of security and purpose from our political system.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

That's right. I can't even begin to imgaine the hell of a time they'd have trying to take over Texas. It'd be like trying to herd tens of millions of fully-armed ill-tempered cats into a giant bath tub and getting them to stay there.


I have cats and that is the funniest thing I have ever read on here!!!!



And true

Semper



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It's rare that one party ever has full control, anyway.
Also, any possible coup would have to be similar to how they got rid of JFK, as long as the vice president was a puppet, elected in by the sheer force of the presidential candidate...



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Just a few points I was thinkin about that I'd like to share with you on this subject matter - if there would be a coup-de-tat, would it be initiated by the people (and militia group backing) in response to government policies domestic and foreign? Such as if Bush charged head first with nukes into Iran and immediately brought in conscription and martial law, and the people revolt against him putting the country in such a pricarious position.

-would it be part of the new world order agenda to bring in a military type hard-liner to do the dirty work for the illuminati, and fast forward their plans by staging a coup and ridding the white house of the neo-cons, and placing an illuminati backed general in his place? maybe also in response to foreign policy issue, some general with a major backing of the military could march towards the white house and request the congress to vacate.

Just thought I'd share that with you to contribute to the debate, they might be far-fetched ideas but then again nothing would surprise me and it could help others with their ideas.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwupy
Could there be a military overthrow of the United States Government? How close has such an event come to being a reality? What would it take and who would be the players?


First, yes there could be. Any thing is possable, is it not.

Second, during the Civil War it was really damn f'n close.

Last but not least, what it would take is the complete disreguard of the American people and their "rights" as a whole. Say that the US gov tells the Armed Forces to "disarm the nations gun owners", a hypothetical question that was raised in the military community btw. The players would be the Congress, and Senate of course along with Whitehouse. Other players would be the Navy and Marines because they are not restricted by posse commitatus, of the old interpretation. Today I have heard that the NG and Reserves would do the task but, I highly doubt a bunch of part timers could maintain the skills to be effective.

Other players have been mentioned and are "the people".






But....considering those who would be asked to disarm their American bretheran and families are Americans themselves, I see it not as possable as say foreign forces disarming the people. Which is ludacrist and not a feasible option for any potential force.

So unless "the people" voice their rights and demand the current government removed, not likely. A subversive and covert style clandestine infiltration, would be the most probable and likely route of such a event occuring.

A corp rat take over, I mean over throw is the realistic and highly probable course.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Of course the answer most people like to give is that it could never happen in America because we're all Americans, weened on the values of our Republic, armed to the teeth, and naturally disagreeable to anything resembling authority.

It comes down the following: Is it tactically possible? Is it logistically possible? Is it politically possible?

Tactics
In reality the "unorganized militia", the armed citizenry, would fold fast against a coup by the regular military. The armed forces are perfectly capable of controlling major lines of supply and communication, enabling them to take resisting states by seige.

For example: How do you quell resistance to a coup in Southern California? Do you commit whole an entire division to go in there and clear the cities and disarm them? How many major cities can you quell that way, and what will go on in the outside world while you're busy with that?

Nope. You take El Centro, Blythe, Barstow, Ridgecrest, Wheeler Ridge, and San Luis Obispo- all easily done from existing bases at 29 Palms, Fort Irwin, and Vandenberg AFB. Relatively small towns that control the freeways.

You cut electronic communication in any of a number of ways: electronic warfare, simply cutting the lines between certain areas, or bombing vital components. You cut power lines into major urban areas. You shut off the California aquaduct. Water becomes scarce, there's minimal communication, stores aren't being restocked, gasoline runs out, etc.

Those who would resist you will not have the ability to marshall an appreciable force, move it 50-100 miles, and attack under those conditions. In 2-4 weeks, everything South of Bakersfield is ready to fold: you order them out of the cities to processing centers to be ID'd, fed, etc. While they're out you can go in, assume that any thermal sig you pick up is a hostile, and take weapons out of homes.

I think a brigade would be enough for all of So Cal using such tactics (assuming the national guard wasn't hostile or didn't assemble before you could strike their armories). Not bad considering that we used about that just on the first battle of fallujah.

Tactically speaking, it could be probably be done, though there would be serious economic ramifications and a lot of "cleanup" on the ones who got away in the following years.

Politics
Is there anyone in this country who for any reason would consider a coup? I think there are groups that could be pushed that far under the right circumstances. The effectiveness of the attempt will depend on the group and the reason, and we'll get to that in a moment.

Possible social bases for a coup:
  • Anti-China hardliners: I'd call this the most likely source of a coup between 2006 and 2036, and the odds of them acting up are not very strong.

    If you think China is scary now, you should see what they'll probably look like in 10-20 years. Our friendly policy toward them will be second-guessed far more as economic growth begins to bring their influence to a truly global scale.

    If something widely percieved as a threatening move from China goes unanswered by an American government, that government may face peril from the military and citizens on the political right.

    Just for instance, what if an anti-US government came to power in Mexico and the idea caught on in the media that China had influenced that?

  • Christian Conservatives: Sooner or later the Republicans are going to lose the culture war because they practice abstinence and sinners don't. It's simple math.

    Chances are that the world will continue to turn when that happens. I don't think there will be a NAMBLA office in every town and 24 hour homosexual weddings at the McDonalds drive-thru or opium dens with non-cigarette-smoking sections (well, maybe in California) or anything like that. It'll be pretty much like it is now, just with fewer lawsuits.

    BUT, what if it goes too far for Christians to take sitting down? What if churches start losing lawsuits for preaching that homosexuality is wrong and in effect the government ends up telling religion that they either alter their doctrine or close their doors.

  • White and Chicano Nationalists: Now we're moving away from the groups that probably wouldn't want to and into the groups that just probably couldn't. There is however a chance that white nationalism and the "Atzlan" thing could see an upswing under the right circumstances. The problem with reactionary lunacy is that it tends to come to a head at the worst possible times: precisely because it is reactionary.

    On the outside chance of a large-scale disturbance involving Hispanic-Americans, there would be some danger of whites getting overly-defensive and doing something impulsive. Likewise, if whites do something extreme, there had better be justice fast in order to curtail retaliation.

    I think this becomes more realistic as demographics in the border states start to reflect Hispanic majorities in the 66%+ range. This would be a very new experience for white people, and unfamiliarity, fear, and violence go hand in hand.

    If the economy turns downward you get a sense of competition for resources between groups and all it would take is the right lawsuit and ruling to cause a single act of violence, then there's a riot in reaction, soon things snowball and if the states can't get the genie back into the bottle then we'd better pray that the esprit de corps in our federal forces is stronger than the racial tension.

    As long as nobody TRIES to start that fight though, we should be OK.


Logistics

So, which groups could call on what kind of forces?

Hardline generals standing against our China policy would probably do the best. That's a relatively populist coup: the military and a hefty portion of the common men versus the financial/political establishment and those who can't be talked into fearing foreigners. That would work out pretty textbook I think: once the ball was rolling successfully the chain of command would just fall in line.

Christians... hard to say. It'd likely be more regional and not coming from the top of the military. You'd likely see an escalation into a standoff not unlike when federal troops had to intervene for the integration of schools, and you've have a few odd units mutiny. The question is whether they'd just refuse orders or if they'd move against the government for issuing certain kinds of orders.

A racial problem would be more a civil war than a coup. You'd be looking at intra-unit breakdowns that all caused major problems for the military command structure, and that might prompt drastic measures by officers- perhaps ordering arrests or worse. Then you're looking at a military which might represent only one side of the conflict though, and it's hard to know if they'll follow their orders or if they'll go down to where the problem is and just choose a side.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

No, if we are not happy with our government that is why we hold elections every 4 years.


Lol.

How can you say that? Have you not witnessed the stolen elections in 2000 and 2004?


Watch VIDEO of court
Computer programmer Clinton Eugene Curtis testifies under oath before the U.S.
House Judiciary Members
in Ohio (back in 2004):


Are there computer programs that can be used to secretly fix elections?
Yes.

How do you know that to be the case?
Because in October of 2000, I wrote a prototype for Congressman Tom Feeney [R-FL]...

It would rig an election?
It would flip the vote, 51-49. Whoever you wanted it to go to and whichever race you wanted to win.

And would that program that you designed, be something that elections officials... could detect?
They'd never see it.


Voting is not gonna get anyone anywhere.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Just a few points I was thinkin about that I'd like to share with you on this subject matter - if there would be a coup-de-tat, would it be initiated by the people (and militia group backing) in response to government policies domestic and foreign?


I think a coup de tat is more likely to happen becuase bush isnt keen on going into IRAN. His generals and war mongers around him probably DROOL over the chance of using tactical nukes, while ensuring dominance in the region.

As dumb as bush is, and after the balls up that is iraq, he isnt going to give the GO order on any major military offensive. He's just not that brave, and frankly I personally believe he's starting to wake up to the fact someone close to him, is using him.

Be it his father, his VP, his heirachy of officials...

The coup if it were to happen would be a carbomb, next to the president, or next to the president and the vice president.
Depending on who is the string puller in the background.

If the pres and the vice pres are killed, who effecitvley becomes leader?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
If a coup were to ever take place, it would probably be done in a manner as to not "upset" the populace. Even if a president were to be considered to be "bad" for the country, Americans would rally around the flag, so to speak, in his defense against a military coup.

Ideally, a coup would occur in a fashion where the president is assasinated. Let us say, for arguments sake, that a key player in this coup is the vice president. When the president is assasinated, the vice president would simply be sworn into the office of the presidency during the certain period of confusion that would follow any attack -- successful or not -- on the presidency. One the "new president" is in office, he would be able to consolidate his position and the positions of his own key people and co-conspirators.

If I'm not being very clear on this scenario, lets use, for arguments sake, the assasination of President John F. Kennedy and his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Of course, I'm not trying to draw any parrallels and I certainly am not suggesting that such a coup has already taken place back in November of 1963. Perish the thought.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


If the pres and the vice pres are killed, who effecitvley becomes leader?


The line of succession is The President, the vice president, the speaker of the house, the protem of the senate and secretary of state. I believe after that it would go to one of the department heads but don't quote me on it, it's been a long time since I studied such things.

You also have the shadow government and theres no telling how they would come into play if all five members on the list were suddenly assassinated.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well, Marg, since the elections are rigged, this may not be too far fetched


What an experience it is living in these days.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Cheers mr fluffy, I mean wuppy.

I doubt the VP would be knocked off as well, because he's too greedy not to be a active member if any thing of such substance occured.

But, shadow governments are shadow for a reason. Who really knows who holds what power



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, Marg, since the elections are rigged, this may not be too far fetched


What an experience it is living in these days.


I know exactly what you mean it was a program on TV from a study about the electronic voting machines that it clearly proves that it only takes 4 minutes and a memory card to do the damage while the machines are waiting to be ready for the elections.

The rest is left to be spread by the same people that are keeping security and taking care of the machines while people vote without even knowing.

Memory cards are use by more than one machine during the voting time spreading the intended damage.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Who can forget this nutcase?


www.gopfun.com..." border=0>





posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Your are right dg we all know how elections was won in 2000.

They were won with the power of the mind



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   
What happens if a few generals just take their troops and storm the capital? As well as the Whitehouse. I never ever thought about any of this till now.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia


I think a coup de tat is more likely to happen becuase bush isnt keen on going into IRAN. His generals and war mongers around him probably DROOL over the chance of using tactical nukes, while ensuring dominance in the region.



I think it may be just the opposite. The "warmongers" are, for the most part, the corporate and political suits sitting thousands of miles away from any conflict. It's usually the military leadership who are more cautious and tend to think more about consequences.
Many in the military may not really give a hoot about economic dominance in the region, it's not their brief but they are expected to die for the priveledge of making the boardroom boys rich(er).

So, a short term military takeover, leading to a new civilian government setup may not necessarily be a bad thing and a house clearing may even be welcomed by many of the civilian population. After all, it'd be unpatriotic NOT to support the troops..right?



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
This is so far-fetched, it's silly. Let's not forget that the U.S. has five branches of military; which, by the way, are extremely competitive amongst one another. Organizing a coup that consisted of more than one service branch is tricky enough, besides why involve the entire military when a trained SS is all you need? .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join