Comment: you underestimate psychological and power phenomenas

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes and No (see in situ)

you underestimate psychological and power phenomenas

You are right that it would be not like to break out the offensive evenly across country and if it would go somewhere it would be long road and the violence would start on hotspots (because there simply is not the potential to occupy whole mainland USA at once - at least US military hasn't such potential).

But this would work only on lulled unarmed population, not a well
armed population awaken by major crisis and its fundamental injustices - for instant example like orders of trillions federal bailouts v. foreclosures on literally millions of people or like orders of another trillions foreign military adventures v inability to meet longterm social liabilities towards most of the people.
If some crisis like this happens and the people slowly realize their existence is under major threat from the side of their own government and its handlers - which already happened in USA (and not only there) - for instant examples like the majority is against US led "war on terror" abroad, bailouts and like almost 90% supports FED audit - it is like an imprint - and therefore in my opinion they have no chance in next two generations effectively grab guns in USA - and you're in my opinion right it would be the case where the resistence would kick in if they try it using force.

What you're in my opinion absolutely wrong about is that they can do something like a nationwide gungrab using terrorist tactics, actively inflicted humanitary crises and illegal weapons. USA is not third world.

Not because it wouldn't be true that the civilian Americans would tend to surrender to such attempts, as you correctly object, but you again forget the America is not alone on this planet. You forget that it would in the age of HD video pocket cameras, internet and other hi-tech networks immediately lead to polarization of the global public opinion - and the US military has vital resources and hundreds of military instalations abroad and cannot afford two front war where one front is on numerous foreign territories and the other the domestic civil war against hundreds of millions armed citizens -and especially not a civil war fought by the way of outright terrorist means like lying conditions of surrender while using illegal weapons as chemical like means to coerce people into such surrender on their own land where it is not unusual the trespass is a legal reason to shoot intruder without notice.

A terrorist tactics would surely lead to global outrage - if not induced by Americans themselves then facilitated and orchestrated by the US adversaries (because they would feel the major internal instability in USA on the edge of a civil war is not only potentially dangerous for them but could give them American population as a potential ally, especially in moral sense and create opportunity to substantially change status-quo in their favor) and eventually to blockade or even seizure of most US assets abroad including major resources needed to fight such war (either by major US adversaries themselves or by proxy) - such acts of terror would give US adversaries excellent pretext to do so - and only the core of their military power now (unlike in 2001) not only outnumbers the manpower of US military several times but they have also considerably stronger strategic forces - and where at least China is suspected having the military doctrine to invade mainland USA if possible. (-the Shangai pact with Russia and whole the subcontinent from Iran to India on observer status, able in case of necessity put together an army outnumbering not just the 3 million US military including reserves and desk staff, not only whole the US population, but whole the western civilization adult population - the potential of Shangai pact in case of total war is around 1.2 billion - with "b" - troops!) and only major reasons (except the general need to keep semblance of morality and civility on international scene while still rebuilding their power) why they already didn't is that A] USA and its allies are still good customers and debtors - so there is for now better for them to keep status-quo - and B] that there is still a considerable strategic deterrent they would need to neutralize by first strike which would considerably complicate their invasions can result in at least some retaliation and could also turn global public opinion against them.

So in my opinion to try disarm Americans using illegal terrorist means would be a game US military cannot afford and in my opinion it would be only good if also Americans (instead of perpetuating nationalist sentiments of false beliefs the USA has compelling unchallengeable global power just because they forced by IRS pay feds half of the world military budget) would learn about real position of USA in context of powers in the world - because it could paradoxicly serve the people there as a decisive advantage against rogue feds with their powergrab and gungrab ambitions destroying the culture of civil rights and liberties - going in fact against their very vital interests as nation as well as vital interests of the whole western civilization.

The people who orchestrate the powergrabs and gungrabs etc. striving their ultimate greed cause towards totalitarian society under color of law is in fact a tiny fraction of the elite, recruiting itself almost only from the milieu of international corporate power.
The number of the key people of this kind which are indispensable for advancing this narrowminded and morally insane plans is several hundreds. - They always risk they could get not only exposed but retaliated without any military could possibly help them avoid it - that would not only be the end of their plans but most probably the end of their line in order of universe, eliminated in case of a major war as its cause.
Our problem is not so much that we have the world government, our problem is that it is almost purely controlled by rogue entities which are in fact unable to advance almost any real social progress, have much more particular private interests than meaningful goals for mankind future, operate using secrecy, corruption and abuse of political systems including democracy and having goals going absolutely against historical logic - especially in developed countries.
I still believe that they can realize there are better ways how to use people than to dumb and enslave them, find the way out of their narrowmindness of power&profit centered approach and finally realize the real potential of western civilization with its victorious freedom&rights mindset of real justice (hardly comprehended notions anywhere else and especially not Asia) - if they would either start to support the liberty with their vast resources or at least get out of way. -Only then they could really control the world in the positive sense - not inhibit but unfold its potential as ordered by the supreme.