You were modded down (Score: -1, Bloodlust or whatever), but you still have a good point: if the Syrian regime were as technologically well-equipped as most Western governments, this uprising would have been a very short one.
We are going to be in a lot of trouble if a major Western power ever goes ape the way Germany did only one lifetime ago.
if the Syrian regime were as technologically well-equipped as most Western governments, this uprising would have been a very short one.
Likewise, if the Syrian uprising were as technologically well-equipped as a large fraction of Americans, the uprising would have been a very short one. Every year we field some 18,000,000 well-equipped civilian snipers in a live-fire live-target exercise aka "Operation Deer Season". This may explain why the US government is keen on disarming citizens of "assault weapons", even though such items are demonstrably less of a societal problem than stairs or swimming pools.
To append a relevant quote from Einstein
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
A lot of it comes down to institutional strength. There's probably some good academic models for this, but I'd say:
1) Institutional cohesion and alignment with population. Many dictators have ethnically homogenous security services - their clan, tribe, whatever. People are loyal to the ethnicity, not the country or institution. That's how you get a nations military killing it's own people. In democratic western countries, the military is much more reflective of the overall population, which puts a check on that.
2) Training. Just because Syria has "jets" doesn't mean they're well-maintained, flown by skilled pilots and employed with excellent tactics. It's very expensive and time consuming to apply the tools of modern war. NATO nations spend a ton of money training their troops to improve effectiveness.
Really, I think the first one is most important. Theoretically you don't get violent uprisings in western nations because democratic governments are more responsive to needs and social composition of the population.
The traffic signals in one intersection a block away from my house include six cameras. I don't know what they're all for... but I'm guessing that it would be a bad idea for me to trundle my homebrew trebuchet up to that intersection and start chucking grenades around.
When you are discussing "chucking grenades around" in your own neighborhood, it seems that cameras are the least of the worries for peaceful, law-abiding civilians in your area (not to mention police who are just doing their jobs).
Why it is publicly acceptable to talk like Timothy McVey?
What would be an example? I'm more of an advocate of individual liberty than I am an agitator against any particular organizations. Bad things happen when governments, even Western ones, have too much power over individuals, just as bad things happen when individuals gain too much power over their neighbors.
We are going to be in a lot of trouble if a major Western power ever goes ape the way Germany did only one lifetime ago.