Probably the most logic reason why such an event probably won't happen would have be from an economic standpoint. There's is basically no economy if every citizen were to be locked up. Now that I think about it, martial law nowadays would be the equivalent of drop a bomb on the United States? Only a complete psychopath would go along with it.
Question: Has ever in the history of America there have been an example of a national declaration of martial law? I mean not just one town having a goddamn fire or something and for a day the cops can bet up rioters type thing, I mean like NATIONAL level martial law. I don't think so. Canadians are more likely to declare martial law, which only happened 3 times in history.
I can see them casting martial law and making it stick. the government can do it, if others have done so in the past: cut the net off, cut the power off if they get too big and demanding, stop delivering things, shooting anyone who seems the least bit of a threat...yes I can see it happening with ease.
While I can see it happening, if a good portion of the country is considered a threat (basically all the internet), wouldn't some of the soldiers stick up for the citizens. I fail to see the logic in having to exterminate over half your countries population. They can try and chances are they probably will succeed, but it would only lead to countries hating us more and more and if our government got power hungry they're no way they can take on the world without suffering any serious consequences. Resistance will always carry on and no amount of technological advancements will be able to prevent it.
it's happened in other countries, they don't agree or tired of the public and just kill them. the government and people will divide and help each other or kill each other, and within the world they will literally take out one another with high crime and "they" can't be everywhere so chaos would come about. kill out those who aren't puppets and then rule the people better if they obey and comply with the new world order.
Could you cite which counties and time periods this happened in? I have studied up on a lot of dictatorships and tyranny states but never has there been a government that grew "tired of the public and just kill them." Not in NAZI Germany, not Soviet Union, not North Korea, not Iran, or anywhere. There may have been some madmen who wanted to just kill the entire population off but it was never even been tried let alone worked. Dictatorships normally single out some type of scape goat and then clamp down on the specific minority that is labeled the "enemy." Declare "everyone" the enemy and the government itself becomes the enemy.
You seem to act like every single military soldier out their would go along with this plan, especially here in the states; they're still human and I cannot imagine that they would all agree to this, especially if the mere thought of shooting innocent civilians like friends and family members would horrify them. I happen to have a best friend of 11+ years,in the military and there's no way he would go for this. And many others are like this, its not like the government can simply flip on a light-switch and then suddenly they're rendered more as mindless killing machines. Sounds like some 1984/ Matrix sci-fi bs if you ask me.
From an economic standpoint I would figure that martial law, especially now in this day and age would cause more damage. This country is already considered a laughing stock by nearly everyone in the world and many Americans can attest to that.
Martial law would cause a great many problems, but it is a temporary measure. The movies and other media would have you think that martial law is a longer lasting thing, but it isn't for the exact reason of economics.
1. Who is going to fly the planes to bomb American citizens? The pilots just won't follow those orders and historically soldiers never kill their own civilians. During the end of the USSR the communist government ordered the Red army to fire on the Perestroika movement. Red Army refused and that was the end of it. Governments that are not supported by a solid majority of the people fall pretty quickly when push comes to shove.
1a. President Obama received 62.6 million votes while US population is 314 million or something. That is NOT a solid majority. Most people just go along to get along. They don't actually support anything least of all the government. Declaring martial law and dropping bombs on those people would wake them up quick and the 100 million gun owners would turn the countryside into the worlds largest firing range. It took ten years for the military to subdue Iraq a country of 31 million largely unarmed population. Coast to Coast would be impossible. It is just NOT possible and that doesn't even factor in large portions of the military going AWOL.
1b. Chances are the soldiers would be bombing their own neighborhoods. I think sonrouge said it best: (even Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had to make secret police organizations for internal security because the regular military viewed internal security against their own people with disdain), the government would be biting off a lot more than it can chew if it tried... If you want a more recent example look at the Arab Spring. Mubarak of Egypt called in the military and is his regime collapsed the next day. What makes America would be any different.
1c. Governments taking up arms against their own citizens become illegitimate. Period.
2. Media and Movies tend to cover up and discredit the idea of Cabals even existing. It is only after years of independent research and study and learning to think outside of Satan's black box that I have come to see the reality of the conspiracies coming together.
With over eighty million gun-owners in the US (many of whom are ex-military), as well as a military that more than likely will not enforce martial law to the degree government would need it to be (even Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had to make secret police organizations for internal security because the regular military viewed internal security against their own people with disdain), the government would be biting off a lot more than it can chew if it tried to go the dictatorship route. And even if the military did enforce it as it would need to be, it would still not be an easy task.
That being said, there are many other ways besides martial law for the government to take semi-dictatorial power. It can most certainly be said to have already done so if one knows what to look for, and unfortunately, many people, particularly on this forum, show little concern for such actions provided they are not the target of them.
The effectiveness of martial law would depend entirely on how the army stood on the issue. If they were entirely loyal to the government then they could enforce martial law quite effectively. If they were loyal to the population then it would be impossible. It would all depend on who had the best propaganda.
The gap between citizen capability and military capability has only widened, imposing martial law would be more difficult now than in the past because we have the internet, nothing to do with weaponry.