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

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

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

They shelled civilians in NYC during the Civil War when they were protesting the draft.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I know Tech's is trying to imply that Obama only won because of Diebold. While I understand his anger because of how big of a failure Obama appears to be, he needs to get over the whole election thing and realize Obama was fairly elected due to voter fraud efforts of Acorn and its ilk, not Diebold.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: 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.

agreed.. Military against civilians is fundamentally against a core belief of the United States.

Anything too outrageous.. or too unfair.. and people in every line of government start saying "This could happen to me." That's one thing about the US that every other country needs to have..

Or maybe I'm being too optimistic..

 

[Nitemare]

They stopped during the Selma race riots when they realized that they weren't in a 3rd world country.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Of course they would.

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: bdude
They shot at kent state.

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

Sure, only difference is the regular Army will have better aim.

 

[Tab3076]

On a large scale? No. A solider is trained for circumstances such as this and what person would shoot their own country men?

 

[StageLeft]

If enough of their commanders told them to, of course.

 

[NoWhereM]

I'm actually surprised how many people are answering no to this question.

Strike of 1877

Before you call me an idiot, and tell me the troops were "attacked", keep two things in mind. In each "battle" only strikers were shot to death and "history is written by the victor".

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: 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.

agreed.. Military against civilians is fundamentally against a core belief of the United States.

Anything too outrageous.. or too unfair.. and people in every line of government start saying "This could happen to me." That's one thing about the US that every other country needs to have..

Or maybe I'm being too optimistic..

Optimistic going into the territory of total naivete. The US has a unique culture and government but is made up of the same human race that throughout history has tortured, raped, massacred, oppressed, ad tedium. People can me manipulated en masse with the right leadership at the right time. Doesn't matter if you're an Iranian secret police member, a North Korean gulag guard, a Nazi (Godwin FTW) or anything else, you were born a kid, probably played with toys as a kid, liked your mom, like going home to visit your family, make a living, and uphold the status quo, whatever it happens to be at the time. People in the West by virtue of society are as yet far more resistant to oppression and acting like insane animals, but they are not cured of the underlying weakness in humanity that makes them suceptible to it.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I Believe they would. Military is not trained like riot police. So when seeing a mob, they treat them like a mob of hostile civilians in Iraq or whatever. Trust me, they won't go on the same negotiations and deal with your rocks flying at them like riot police will before spraying people with hoses. No, they won't even start with hoses. Their rubber bullets start flying pretty soon, if not real bullets.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: NoWhereM
I'm actually surprised how many people are answering no to this question.

Strike of 1877

Before you call me an idiot, and tell me the troops were "attacked", keep two things in mind. In each "battle" only strikers were shot to death and "history is written by the victor".

that is not the only time either. I am suprised so many people are saying no it will not happen.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
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.

this.

 

[BurnItDwn]

After enough manipulation/brainwashing/propaganda, I'm sure the Pentagon could convince most GIs that the civilians were "the enemy" and that "deadly force" would be an appropriate way to deal with troublemakers.

Now, if some general just decided out of the blue to order the troops to fire at peaceful protesters ... I think very few soldiers would follow that order.

 

[maluckey]

Of course the Commander in Chief would first have to declare Martial Law. AFTER that, you follow orders from the Commander. Failure to do so gets you arrested.

Of course Obama doesn't have the stones to make such a move..................

 

[irwincur]

Probably depends on who they are shooting at. You have to remember the makeup of the Army. Odds are if the event was in NYC they would shoot. If it was in Dallas or Omaha they would not.

Just a fact, most soldiers are more conservative, and many absolutely loath the big city leftists that mock their flyover country towns.

 

[eleison]

A small number (mostly the psychotic ones) would initially, but then morale would go down.. look at vietnam... some soldiers effectively stopped following orders. Its ingrained in the USA that soldiers are under the president. It is also ingrained that the president is under "the people"... Basically, soldiers are under the "people".. because of this orders to kill the people make no sense.

In addition, if a president orders of the massacre of American citizens, he would promptly be impeached or otherwise removed by other parts of the government.

Also, its a known fact that most soldiers would rather not kill. Because of this, as time goes by the will to kill their fellow country men will go down. However, as stated earlier, a small number would kill initially because of their "training"... and the USA does train their soldiers well ;-P .... but like Vietnam morale would make them stop.

If I remember correctly, when China wanted to stop the Tienanmen square massacre, they had to bus in soldiers that were ethnically different then those of the square. To find American soldiers who have no "connection" with those that they are killing in the USA would be extremely difficult.. The USA is a mobile country.

 

[BriGy86]

I debated myself on this question. I thought no at first for the reason that if the people were peaceful and not causing an immediate threat. But I know damn well that the bullets would fly if people started tipping over Humvee s and firebombing tanks. Then I thought about Kent state. That combined with the training of blindly following orders. I think you have a higher chance of being shot at if the orders are given.

 

[manowar821]

They're just dumb people like the majority of society, why wouldn't they do some stupid?

 

[beyoku]

Maybe you should ask if they would shoot white people.
I already know that they would kill us.

 

[daishi5]

This is completely dependant on the situation.

They have done studies with nurses who are also highly trained, and they found that the more stressful the situation, more urgent, and more strange the more likely that the person is willing to do things they know are wrong when told to do so by an authority figure. In other words, when they had a "doctor" call them in the middle of the night telling them that they needed to give a patient some unkown drug right away, (they told them to give a very large overdose) 9 out of 10 would listen. However, if it was not urgent, or if it was a drug the nurse was familiar with, none of them would do it.

If you had a peaceful march that looks like a parade, it is very unlikely that the soldiers would fire, however if the protest was getting a little out of hand and they started to push on the soldiers the soldiers would be much more likely to obey orders.

 

[piasabird]

I have wondered why we did not use military forces when all the udocumented workers were protesting in groups of 100,000 or more. I thought it was the perfect time to wipe them out. I wonder if the US Military would enforce the laws of the USA if it came to firing on protestors if they were interrupting the peace in a large way for an extended period of time. Would the USA ever open fire on Demonstrators just to kill them all or enforce the peace. My take on this is foreigners are trying to forcefull affect the business climate and are actually invading the USA. Who is in charge of this country? When the balance of the law is challenged then the military will have to keep the peace.

Will it happen? Maybe, but I doubt O'Bamma will protect even one US Citizen. He is too busy apollagizing to foreigners. I say we owe no apologies to anyone.

 

[soulcougher73]

I voted no because you said a peaceful protest. I was in the military and i personally would never fire upon a US Citizen even if ordered too. Well unless it was a kill or be killed scenario (self defense). We dont need another Civil War on our hands.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted no because you said a peaceful protest. I was in the military and i personally would never fire upon a US Citizen even if ordered too. Well unless it was a kill or be killed scenario (self defense). We dont need another Civil War on our hands.

And therein lies the flaw in the "yea" reasoning. Suppose police were ordered to shoot to kill jaywalkers? You think huntin' season would open? Heck, they can burn LA and the police just stand and watch.

Is there any possible scenario where the military might shoot civilians? Of course. For a peaceful protest? Not bloody likely.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I wonder if the soldiers would shoot themselves if they had to read Techs posts for a day or 2.