0
0

[–] whitedogofpyr ago 

The IEDs would be the main issue. Can't transport the food if the roads keep exploding. No food = city riots. City riots = cops flee to their homes. Cops flee to their homes = no law and order. No law and order = no government. No government = libertarian paradise... for a time. That's the basic idea anyway.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

The US is full of roads though, and they won't know which ones they're using in advance. Also, IEDs take time to make/rig and someone has to man the thing to make sure it doesn't get tripped by a schoolbus or something. They could cause a bit of chaos and send a very clear message, but it would take millions of people to fully shut down food distribution routes. If they had those numbers they could just fight a conventional war.

0
0

[–] whitedogofpyr ago 

Look at crimea for an example. Every road was barricaded. The ethnic russians created smaller communities that supported each other and Ukraine couldn't really do much. In the US, you'd have the same dynamic. Getting out to remove barricades would create numerous ambush opportunities for the few that decided to directly confront the feds. It would become a necessity considering the massive amounts of people fleeing cities for food. Once you start the snowball, if it's not crushed and propagandized immediately, you'd get your conventional army sized group, they just wouldn't fight a conventional war, nor would most of them actually want to fight a war.

That's just roads. Gas, water, and power lines should all be considered as well. A very small, smart group could do a lot of damage in a short period of time. The rest is just natural progression. Then it's just a matter of what comes after because then you get a Napoleon, a Washington, or a Stalin... aka rolling the dice is more dangerous than reform, so people would have to have nothing left to lose.

Let me know what you think because this stuff is fun to think about and I may be missing something.