Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[Genivaria]

Deodoro de Fonseca was essentially overthrown by a naval coup (or counter-coup, depending on how you look at it)

Outside of the Roman Empire, professional militaries, army or navy, are comparitively recent inventions, and so likewise coups are uncommon until the modern era. I think there was a medieval Korean coup done by naval officers, but don't quote me on that.

Same way any army enters a city. You roll up and inflict damage until the people remaining surrender.

I feel like success in that would depend heavily on context. I mean, sure, a small country like Korea with a lot of ports might be hit hard by that, but a country like China (or the U.S) with tons of land that could depend on its internal resources would probably outlast any attempt by the Navy to take over.

Relevant and educational video series about the Chinese Pirate Queen who forced Chinese government to terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p2lhxUqMMQ

[Genivaria]

The South was strangled by the Union blockade, yeah. Absent God interfering on the Just And Righteous Cause Of The South (for some strange reason He didn't) on land they were fucked the minute the blockade was decided upon.

The South's not quite as righteous as it likes to think, imo.

Shhh that kind of talk is dangerous here.

[The Parkus Empire]

The Union won by blockade alone, gg

The South was strangled by the Union blockade, yeah. Absent God interfering on the Just And Righteous Cause Of The South (for some strange reason He didn't) on land they were fucked the minute the blockade was decided upon.

The blockade that depended on half the country supporting it. If Lincoln had no states in his side and just commanded the blockade, that would not work.

[Salus Maior]

I feel like success in that would depend heavily on context. I mean, sure, a small country like Korea with a lot of ports might be hit hard by that, but a country like China (or the U.S) with tons of land that could depend on its internal resources would probably outlast any attempt by the Navy to take over.

Theoretically, the same could be said about the Army... if occupying and 'taking over' in that sense was necessary.

It's not.

Most modern coups are done with the participation of a fraction of a fraction of the military's total personnel, and usually centered around government and military centers rather than occupying the country as a whole. Coups don't seek to (immediately) dismantle the whole of the government - just take it over. You only need the top brass (metaphorically speaking, since civilian/military divides are common in modern governments) to achieve that.

Yes, that makes sense. But it's also hard to coup a government when you can't get your Destroyers over land to get to the Capital.

Plus, with larger countries, if you don't get all the players you need to finish the coup you could start a civil war. Or just have your coup peter out, like with what happened in Turkey.

[Benuty]

The South was strangled by the Union blockade, yeah. Absent God interfering on the Just And Righteous Cause Of The South (for some strange reason He didn't) on land they were fucked the minute the blockade was decided upon.

The blockade that depended on half the country supporting it. If Lincoln had no states in his side and just commanded the blockade, that would not work.

Not to mention there is still the matter of the multitude of land battles that took place with the presence of this blockade so that anaconda strangled slowly if anything.

[Conserative Morality]

The blockade that depended on half the country supporting it. If Lincoln had no states in his side and just commanded the blockade, that would not work.

"How can a navy inflict damage on a land-based government?"

"Blockades"

"We can produce everything we need lol"

"Yeah, that's what the South said."

"Well if Lincoln didn't have ANYONE ON HIS SIDE except for the Navy, that wouldn't have worked!"

Congratulations, you've learned the first basic lesson of statecraft - no action is viable without at least some support?

Or do you think that armies magically get to skip that basic aspect of society because 'muh anti-militarism but traditionalist so I have to make weird and inane contradicting claims to reconcile them'?

Let me predict your next post: "Coups don't have public support =^^^^)"

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, that makes sense. But it's also hard to coup a government when you can't get your Destroyers over land to get to the Capital.

Doesn't matter. When the rich are having their profits choked, the urban poor are having their jobs destroyed, and the rural inlanders are stripped of tools and materials are affordable prices, who's going to stick up for the lads in the capital? All else being equal.

Plus, with larger countries, if you don't get all the players you need to finish the coup you could start a civil war. Or just have your coup peter out, like with what happened in Turkey.

That's true with coups undertaken by armies as well as navies. Point is, Parkus' point is bunk. Standing navies and armies are no different in principle and, largely, in function.

[The Parkus Empire]

The blockade that depended on half the country supporting it. If Lincoln had no states in his side and just commanded the blockade, that would not work.

"How can a navy inflict damage on a land-based government?"

"Blockades"

"We can produce everything we need lol"

"Yeah, that's what the South said."

"Well if Lincoln didn't have ANYONE ON HIS SIDE except for the Navy, that wouldn't have worked!"

Congratulations, you've learned the first basic lesson of statecraft - no action is viable without at least some support?

Or do you think that armies magically get to skip that basic aspect of society because 'muh anti-militarism but traditionalist so I have to make weird and inane contradicting claims to reconcile them'?

You were talking about something like an admiral staging a coup using the navy. I mean, really, how is this comparable?

Moreover I hate standing armies not because I fear coups, but because they are used to invade states like Vietnam and Iraq

[Salus Maior]

I feel like success in that would depend heavily on context. I mean, sure, a small country like Korea with a lot of ports might be hit hard by that, but a country like China (or the U.S) with tons of land that could depend on its internal resources would probably outlast any attempt by the Navy to take over.

Relevant and educational video series about the Chinese Pirate Queen who forced Chinese government to terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p2lhxUqMMQ

Yes, but haggling for a pardon is different from a coup. If she were asking for the Dragon Throne, China wouldn't balk, they'd likely just keep fighting her with Euro assistance until she was dead. Because they had that kind of resources to spend.

[The Parkus Empire]

Progressives, man. Damn.

[Conserative Morality]

You were talking about something like an admiral staging a coup using the navy. I mean, really, how is this comparable?

1. Capital is on or near the seafront.

2. Naval officers do not spend every second of their lives on the salty seas.

3. Riverboats.

4. Issuing a demand through a message to the capital threatening a blockade in the same way a general would threaten violence jesus H. Christ this is fucking coups 101

Pick literally any of the above.

Moreover I hate standing armies not because I fear coups, but because they are used to invade states like Vietnam and Iraq

"Gunboat diplomacy isn't a thing"

lol okay

Or will it be "Gunboat diplomacy never overthrew foreign sovereign governments =^^^^))))"?

[The Parkus Empire]

You were talking about something like an admiral staging a coup using the navy. I mean, really, how is this comparable?

1. Capital is on or near the seafront.

2. Naval officers do not spend every second of their lives on the salty seas.

3. Riverboats.

4. Issuing a demand through a message to the capital threatening a blockade in the same way a general would threaten violence jesus H. Christ this is fucking coups 101

Pick literally any of the above.

Moreover I hate standing armies not because I fear coups, but because they are used to invade states like Vietnam and Iraq

"Gunboat diplomacy isn't a thing"

lol okay

Or will it be "Gunboat diplomacy never overthrew foreign sovereign governments =^^^^))))"?

The government can easily move out of the capital when they have notice.

Gunboat diplomacy is a thing, but it couldn't do things like Vietnam

[Albrenia]

Progressives, man. Damn.

Sounds like the new slogan for that insurance company.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, that makes sense. But it's also hard to coup a government when you can't get your Destroyers over land to get to the Capital.

Doesn't matter. When the rich are having their profits choked, the urban poor are having their jobs destroyed, and the rural inlanders are stripped of tools and materials are affordable prices, who's going to stick up for the lads in the capital? All else being equal.

Plus, with larger countries, if you don't get all the players you need to finish the coup you could start a civil war. Or just have your coup peter out, like with what happened in Turkey.

That's true with coups undertaken by armies as well as navies. Point is, Parkus' point is bunk. Standing navies and armies are no different in principle and, largely, in function.

Well, my point is that a Naval coup would be far more difficult and complicated than an army coup. An army, or even a portion of an army, could march into the Capital and force demands in almost any context, whereas a naval coup is dependent on certain contexts.

Plus, especially for large countries with a lot of coastline (or two/three major coasts like the US's, East, Gulf, and West coasts) you'd have to make sure you got almost the entire navy on your side before striking if you want to make an effective dent.

[Genivaria]

Relevant and educational video series about the Chinese Pirate Queen who forced Chinese government to terms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p2lhxUqMMQ

Yes, but haggling for a pardon is different from a coup. If she were asking for the Dragon Throne, China wouldn't balk, they'd likely just keep fighting her with Euro assistance until she was dead. Because they had that kind of resources to spend.

True enough, more like she was far more trouble than she was worth to put down and her terms gave the government a relatively easier way out.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, but haggling for a pardon is different from a coup. If she were asking for the Dragon Throne, China wouldn't balk, they'd likely just keep fighting her with Euro assistance until she was dead. Because they had that kind of resources to spend.

That's the thing about autocracies and monarchies - they can't really completely surrender in that sense, since a surrender means death for everyone in serious positions of power as the new dynasty establishes itself. Yet another reason why coups were uncommon in the pre-modern era.

[The Parkus Empire]

Progressives, man. Damn.

Sounds like the new slogan for that insurance company.

"Now that's subversive!"

[Conserative Morality]

The government can easily move out of the capital when they have notice.

And what the fuck do you think happens when a government evacuates ahead of a planned army coup? "Oh, I didn't realize this was an ARMY coup, I guess we'll come back and surrender. =^)"

Gunboat diplomacy is a thing, but it couldn't do things like Vietnam

...

what?

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

[Salus Maior]

Sounds like the new slogan for that insurance company.

"Now that's subversive!"

LOL

[Conserative Morality]

Well, my point is that a Naval coup would be far more difficult and complicated than an army coup. An army, or even a portion of an army, could march into the Capital and force demands in almost any context, whereas a naval coup is dependent on certain contexts.

Could it? Coups must be quick, else they descend into civil war. Absent the following, armies are at the same disadvantage that navies are:

1. Bases very close to the capital/government centers

2. Chokepoints in and out of the capital/government centers close to army bases

Plus, especially for large countries with a lot of coastline (or two/three major coasts like the US's, East, Gulf, and West coasts) you'd have to make sure you got almost the entire navy on your side before striking if you want to make an effective dent.

That's only if you have to follow through on your threat, and coups who have their bluff called generally fail anyway.

[Salus Maior]

Well, my point is that a Naval coup would be far more difficult and complicated than an army coup. An army, or even a portion of an army, could march into the Capital and force demands in almost any context, whereas a naval coup is dependent on certain contexts.

Could it? Coups must be quick, else they descend into civil war. Absent the following, armies are at the same disadvantage that navies are:

1. Bases very close to the capital/government centers

2. Chokepoints in and out of the capital/government centers close to army bases

That's only if you have to follow through on your threat, and coups who have their bluff called generally fail anyway.

Yes, they have to be quick, which is why a blockade is at a disadvantage unless you have the overwhelming force to make good on your threat. Otherwise, a fleet could blockade one coast, but the government could just re-route important trade to a different coast.

And I think we both can see that's harder to pull off than forcing a real occupation of the capital (and thus the likely capture of vips) through the use of ground forces. It's more indirect.

[The Parkus Empire]

The government can easily move out of the capital when they have notice.

And what the fuck do you think happens when a government evacuates ahead of a planned army coup? "Oh, I didn't realize this was an ARMY coup, I guess we'll come back and surrender. =^)"

Gunboat diplomacy is a thing, but it couldn't do things like Vietnam

...

what?

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

I think if they leave, they reconvene elsewhere, as with the American Revolution

It means no standing army, no war in Vietnam

Now, please, keep your panties nice and untwisted. This thread is for straight, white males, and panties shouldn't be twisted into a degenerate thong, or we will slap you with a pair of nice, reactionary granny panties

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, they have to be quick, which is why a blockade is at a disadvantage unless you have the overwhelming force to make good on your threat. Otherwise, a fleet could blockade one coast, but the government could just re-route important trade to a different coast.

And I think we both can see that's harder to pull off than forcing a real occupation of the capital (and thus the likely capture of vips) through the use of ground forces. It's more indirect.

1. Re-routing trade isn't that easy.

2. Threatening to occupy the capital directly and threatening to blockade the coasts are no different from one another other than that marching into the capital is more visible.

As I said, if you have to follow through on your country-wide threat to win, the coup is generally already done for.

[Conserative Morality]

I think if they leave, they reconvene elsewhere, as with the American Revolution

So this is you admitting there is no difference.

So you're just prattling on in the hopes of putting enough distance between your current post and your original point to not have to actually address the problems with it.

Wonderful.

It means no standing army, no war in Vietnam

Is that why invasions never happened before the establishment of standing armies?

Thanks, Parkus, for this history lesson! I feel dumber already!

Now, please, keep your panties nice and untwisted. This thread is for straight, white males, and panties shouldn't be twisted into a degenerate thong, or we will slap you with a pair of nice, reactionary granny panties

You have the weirdest sexual fetishes. I wish you'd keep them separate from your politics.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, they have to be quick, which is why a blockade is at a disadvantage unless you have the overwhelming force to make good on your threat. Otherwise, a fleet could blockade one coast, but the government could just re-route important trade to a different coast.

And I think we both can see that's harder to pull off than forcing a real occupation of the capital (and thus the likely capture of vips) through the use of ground forces. It's more indirect.

1. Re-routing trade isn't that easy.

2. Threatening to occupy the capital directly and threatening to blockade the coasts are no different from one another other than that marching into the capital is more visible.

As I said, if you have to follow through on your country-wide threat to win, the coup is generally already done for.

Alright, imagine this scenario, which of these things would make you give in to my demands more quickly?

1. Me stealing your car keys, which isn't an immediate threat to you, as devastating as it could be to you given time.

2. Or me breaking into your house and shoving a gun in your face.