1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Revolution--S01E03--10/01/2012--"No Quarter"

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by aaronwt, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. Oct 3, 2012 #61 of 183
    DreadPirateRob

    DreadPirateRob Seriously?

    18,254
    35
    Nov 11, 2002
    SoCal
    Don't be obtuse.

    The entire situation is implausible. My argument is that in this particular set of circumstances, I don't think that the devolution is society is all that unrealistic. And nor does anyone else who's ever written a post-apocalyptic story, where the complete breakdown of society is a given.

    I have no interest in debating this further with you, since I don't see any flexibility of thought processes with which to work with. Especially since you consider 15 years "a short amount of time".
     
  2. Oct 3, 2012 #62 of 183
    DougF

    DougF Active Member

    14,258
    20
    Mar 18, 2003
    North Dakota
    Any of you who think the breakdown of society on this show is unrealistic should go stand outside of a Walmart when it opens on Black Friday.
     
  3. Oct 3, 2012 #63 of 183
    Anubys

    Anubys KMT Soccer Playa

    26,035
    18
    Jul 16, 2004
    Fairfax...
    Sigh...I'm the one who started this and it veered off of my original thought.

    Breakdown is totally realistic. The loss of country identity and having the U.S. be a dirty word is totally unrealistic and would never happen in a 15 year span. Certainly not if it started with military people, who are much more sensitive to Country/flag/patriotism than most people (on average, anyway).
     
  4. Oct 3, 2012 #64 of 183
    TAsunder

    TAsunder Debates Ghee vs Gi

    17,102
    53
    Aug 6, 2003
    Madison, WI
    So I'm obtuse and inflexible in my thought process because I disagree with your assessment of things like FEMA and the military? Yeah, ok...:rolleyes:

    As to your post-apocalyptic assessment... yes, a story that is post apocalyptic typically assumes that something has led to the breakdown of society. They also typically explain why all known forms of military and government collapsed. Here it is being suggested by you and others that no such explanation is needed -- you just assume by default that humanity would devolve into brutal dictatorship militias.
     
  5. Oct 3, 2012 #65 of 183
    TAsunder

    TAsunder Debates Ghee vs Gi

    17,102
    53
    Aug 6, 2003
    Madison, WI
    I'm looking forward to an episode where they go around to the huge number of people with us flags tattooed on their body from before the power loss and make them remove them somehow.
     
  6. Oct 3, 2012 #66 of 183
    Rob Helmerichs

    Rob Helmerichs I am Groot! TCF Club

    38,427
    167
    Oct 17, 2000
    Minneapolis
    Yeah, I'm with you. I can see a vast number of tiny military dictatorships...but they'd still mostly be calling themselves the United States, except the ones that are run by the anti-government militias that are out there now, just PRAYING for civilization to collapse.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2012 #67 of 183
    DreadPirateRob

    DreadPirateRob Seriously?

    18,254
    35
    Nov 11, 2002
    SoCal
    I do agree with this. It seems.... weird. I can see former soldiers being nostalgic for what once was, but not the outright hostility.

    Although I suppose that probably the first step in imposing order in a dictatorship is forced conformance - i.e. you're with us, or you're against us, and if you're against us, you're dead.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2012 #68 of 183
    john4200

    john4200 Active Member

    4,526
    3
    Oct 31, 2009
    What you wrote makes a lot of sense. That's probably the real reason the pirate decided to stop debating the issue with you.
     
  9. Oct 3, 2012 #69 of 183
    JYoung

    JYoung Series 3

    28,723
    68
    Jan 16, 2002
    Los Angeles
    So far though, the ones who consider the United States to be a dirty word are the ones who are or have enforced the new order.
     
  10. Oct 3, 2012 #70 of 183
    pmyers

    pmyers Active Member

    14,879
    4
    Jan 4, 2001
    Gilbert, AZ
    But what do you think keeps local law enforcement, national guard, marines, etc showing up to work everyday? I would argue a paycheck and the ability to provide for their families. You take that away and I would predict that wouldn't be military for very long.

    I'm not saying they would plege allegiance to Monroe (or any other militia), I'm saying they would stop being military and focus on their families. This would easily lead to militias to prosper.
     
  11. Oct 3, 2012 #71 of 183
    DreadPirateRob

    DreadPirateRob Seriously?

    18,254
    35
    Nov 11, 2002
    SoCal
    I stopped debating with him because he refuses to consider other possibilities. When we're talking about hypothetical situations only loosely based in reality, that's frustrating.

    I still don't see how local government is going to be of much help in the event of a disaster such as this one. Do they have food and water stockpiled away? Doubtful. They would have to import it from somewhere. Where and how? No cars/trucks/planes/trains are working. If you're on a river, sure, you could use a raft or something. Guess what - there are very few rivers west of the Mississippi.

    Then there's the supply issue. Where do the supplies come from? Most of our food these days is not grown or produced locally. It's shipped large distances. That's going to be a problem if the ability to move large quantities over long distances in a short period of time is all of a sudden lost overnight. People in rural areas would probably be okay. In places like the Central Valley in CA, where a lot of agriculture takes place, they would probably do fine. But big cities would be warzones inside of a month. So I think the show has it right in that regard.

    So I'm not all that impressed with the argument that "local government would step in and save everybody!" That's Pollyanna-ish to the nth degree.

    I give a little more credence to the idea that the local military bases would probably help in the community. That's exactly where I think the show is going with the militias and warlords in terms of how they got started.
     
  12. Oct 3, 2012 #72 of 183
    john4200

    john4200 Active Member

    4,526
    3
    Oct 31, 2009
    That's not what it looked like to me. He is making sense, and you are not.
     
  13. Oct 3, 2012 #73 of 183
    pmyers

    pmyers Active Member

    14,879
    4
    Jan 4, 2001
    Gilbert, AZ
    I would agree that the U.S name thing is silly and highly unprobable but so far it hasn't been a very big plot point and we only know about Monroe. Perhaps that's just his "rules".
     
  14. Oct 3, 2012 #74 of 183
    DreadPirateRob

    DreadPirateRob Seriously?

    18,254
    35
    Nov 11, 2002
    SoCal
    Fine. Explain to me how the local government is going to step in and save the day/maintain order when they have no ability to a) communicate with people other than in person and b) provide food and water once local supplies are used up.
     
  15. Oct 3, 2012 #75 of 183
    stellie93

    stellie93 Active Member

    3,075
    5
    Feb 25, 2006
    I think people tend to accept loss of freedom to avoid living in anarchy. At first it would be about scrounging stuff, but soon you would realize that you have to learn to grow food, raise animals and make basic needs for yourself. Then you plant a nice crop, and when harvest comes a band of thugs come and steal it. You would be willing to throw in with anyone who could stop that and not worry about what they call the country. Probably most people are paying their "taxes" and being left alone--we're just seeing the ones who aren't.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2012 #76 of 183
    Fahtrim

    Fahtrim New Member

    780
    0
    Apr 12, 2004
    Missouri
    LOL

    This thread and the discussions about the societal possible breakdowns is way better than the actual show, all we need is a concept and a theory to spark good intelligent conversation here.

    The show is insipid, predictable, and tiresome, but these threads are philosophical and thought provoking and elicit individual thought processes and theories. If I knew what irony was, I'd call this ironic.........


    :) :D
     
  17. Oct 3, 2012 #77 of 183
    TAsunder

    TAsunder Debates Ghee vs Gi

    17,102
    53
    Aug 6, 2003
    Madison, WI
    Are you assuming "local government" means just the local county or city? There are also state governments that have armed forces supporting them in the form of national guard units. Additionally, there is the local military bases and local military groups. Those are the groups that would be expected to take action locally and where it does not obviously lead to slaughtering local citizens on a whim or declaring the united states null and void.

    I would expect such groups to have a fair amount of supplies compared to most everyone else. In any case they certainly have guns and a well established chain of command. In order for them to be unable or unwilling to police the local area as is their sworn duty, something has to have happened. If the explanation given or un-given is that they just abandoned their duties then I don't see it as realistic. That's not to say there isn't a possible explanation. I just can't see it being the default behavior of people. It is possible that what we see in the show is just one small exception to the general behavior within the US, but it doesn't seem to be framed that way. I think the writers wanted a mad-max-like world but were too lazy to properly get there.

    Chicago is east of the mississippi. The show takes places around chicago seemingly. Things could get problematic in desert-like areas but I can't imagine the chicago area having issues with water. There's an abundance of farms relatively nearby, many run by technology-shunning groups. You'd think that the amish would become major superheroes in this storyline, come to think of it.

    It seems like if you keep posting long enough you will find that you actually don't think it is plausible for society to have collapsed so quickly and allowed a villainous overlord who murders on a whim to take over without further explanation. Or perhaps you think it is inevitable for the national guard and local military to turn for the worse and become brutal dictators in less than 15 years...?
     
  18. Oct 3, 2012 #78 of 183
    DreadPirateRob

    DreadPirateRob Seriously?

    18,254
    35
    Nov 11, 2002
    SoCal
    Again, there is not a "single villainous overlord" that society has allowed to take over. There are *many* militias/warlords. We've just seen one so far. So we can''t just assume that society has allowed him to completely take over. All we know is that he runs this little corner of the country.

    And I think 15 years is a really long time, when every day is going to be a struggle for survival. I'm not the only one here who thinks that society would break down pretty quickly. We're far too much of a consumer-driven nation at this point, and we've lost the ability to produce that made us a superpower. Especially once electricity was removed. So yes, if someone comes along that wields enough power - and brutality - many people are going to willingly fall in line because they lack the ability to resist.

    And the ones who don't? Well, they form a rebellion. Like we've seen the past 2 episodes.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2012 #79 of 183
    pmyers

    pmyers Active Member

    14,879
    4
    Jan 4, 2001
    Gilbert, AZ
    I agree that 15 years is an extremely long time for things to drastically change in the scenario that they have created and that desperate people will do desperate things including giving up freedoms (which has been demonstrated plenty in history).
     
  20. Oct 3, 2012 #80 of 183
    morac

    morac Cat God

    8,962
    23
    Mar 14, 2003
    NJ
    Unless the local/state military somehow develops superpowers, I still don't see how they are going to be able to do much good beyond the area immediately surrounding their base. There's no way the military would be able to police an entire state.

    Let's look at the total number of enlisted military for 2012. This includes everything (reserves, national guard, army, etc). That number is 2,255,100.

    If you look at the active number of deployed military in the continental U.S at the start of 2012, that number was 1,017,418. There are 847,100 reserve troops (may not all be in continental U.S.), but they may or may not be able to get to their bases. Let's assume they can though. That's a total of 1,864,518 enlisted people in the continental US. Not all of these people are technically soldiers. There are pilots, technicians, etc, but let's just assume there are 1,864,518 available soldiers in the U.S.

    Let's take this number and divide by 48 which is not totally accurate since forces wouldn't be divided equally, but it should be "good enough" for this demonstration. That gives about 38,844 soldiers per state. That's definitely an over-estimation, but I'll use it.

    Since the show is set near Chicago, I'll use Illinois as the state. Illinois has a population of 12,869,257 people. That means that for every "soldier" in Illinois, there are about 331 people. That means that each soldier has to police 331 people assuming they the military wants to police the entire state. Under normal circumstances this would be possible, but without vehicles and with people in a panic state it would not be possible to maintain order at that ratio. I suppose the military could maintain order by killing rioting people, but I doubt that would last long and it wouldn't be any better than having a militia.

    The best the military could do is to take control of areas near military bases and police that. That would leave the "lawless" areas to local militias.
     

Share This Page