>America’s dominated all of the wars in which She’s engaged because she owned the air and the sea. If the Feds own the air with drones, any attempts by civilians to rise against the Federal government will be met with drone attacks.
>
>This is checkmate, really. I’ve seen the post that answers “what good is one citizen with a gun against an army?” That answers the question for ground operations, but owning the air... I’d like to see a corollary to that.
No, it’s not checkmate.
You cannot, I say again, CANNOT control a land with only airpower.
Consider for a moment the derringer, nice small concealable gun. (And there ate the one-shot zip-gun constructions of the design to consider.)
Imagine your local bureaucrat/overlord walking along and you have one of these; what is to stop you from ending his life with it. (Or even a knife, or a piano-wire...)
You might think that the man’s security would prevent it; but here’s the rub they don’t want you to realize: 1) the government DOES NOT have the manpower to provide security for every one of its agents; and 2) security is by no means a sure counter to an assassination attempt.
No, it wouldn’t be “honorable,” but it would get the job done.
{All of the above is also considering only a “lone gunman” situation... but it applies even moreso to a mob.}
However, New York is now testing tech to see weapons through clothing. Put one of those on every street corner in DC, and the chances of getting concealed weapons close enough to a bureaucrat/overlord would be pretty nil.
Then again, where there's a will, there's a way.