A few years ago, I watched a news article about a survey of the US Military. Many were given a question that was something like this:

" If a large group of armed US citizens marched on Washington with the possible intent to overthrow the US government, would you fire upon them if directed to do so by your superior officers?"

Most of the enlisted men and officers (even the high ranking ones) said,
"no".

Many said they would probably join the citizens or fight to protect the citizens.

One high ranking officer (I wish I could remember his rank) said he would line all his men up and give them a choice but urge them to protect the citizens as he would.

Are we coming to this? What are your thoughts? What do you think would happen?

They killed four unarmed protestors in Ohio before.

I thought of that when I posted this thread. But that was a different era where the National Guard was up against "hippies".

Were you one of them?

Yep until I got drafted...

Did you want to shoot any hippies after that?

Only the unpatriotic ones. Burned the flag, etc.

Oh oh, time to go, have a nice day!

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/enemies_foreign_domestic/think_the_armed_forces_mi.php

Think the Armed Forces Might Save the Republic? Think Twice

Here's a cheery little document that looks at the costs and benefits of a national police force. Sound familiar?

A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities "Security requires a mix of military and police forces to deal with a range of threats from insurgents to criminal organizations. This research examines the creation of a high-end police force, which the authors call a Stability Police Force (SPF). The study considers what size force is necessary, how responsive it needs to be, where in the government it might be located, what capabilities it should have, how it could be staffed, and its cost. This monograph also considers several options for locating this force within the U.S. government, including the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in the Department of State, and the U.S. Army's Military Police. The authors conclude that an SPF containing 6,000 people — created in the U.S. Marshals Service and staffed by a “hybrid option,” in which SPF members are federal police officers seconded to federal, state, and local police agencies when not deployed — would be the most effective of the options considered. The SPF would be able to deploy in 30 days. The cost for this option would be $637.3 million annually, in FY2007 dollars."

A free PDF is available at RAND | Monographs | A Stability Police Force for the United States: Justification and Options for Creating U.S. Capabilities

Isn't it heartwarming to know that your government is looking at the means for keeping any untoward eruption among the population under control?

UPDATE: Sherlock in the comments observes,

According to the Rand site, it is dated "2009". So, want to bet there won't be boo about this in the media? Now do a thought experiment: what if it had been dated "2008".



http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf

Anyone with military training will tell you. Most troops would fire on their own Mothers if given the order. They will have been pumped with info that the target/s are terrorists or other National Security threats.

There will be a [few free-thinkers who wouldn't fire. But, they wouldn't attempt to stop or question the order. That would put them up for court martial.

Next time you see a cop, look them in the eyes and speak a good morning, afternoon or the like. See how many of them return the same or eye you like a suspect.

If you don't have time to read 167 pages, reading the summary might change your mind...

Summary
We examined both the downsides and upsides of an SPF. There are several possible downsides. First, building a competent SPF would cost money, and would require taking money from elsewhere in the U.S. government. Second, establishing an SPF would most likely trig- ger bureaucratic resistance. Creating the SPF in any agency will create competition for authorities and funding. Third, staffing an SPF using the hybrid option outlined in Chapter Six could pose challenges. For example, local police agencies might resist losing key police officers and units, such as SWAT teams. In addition, the arrangements between loaning SPF personnel to federal, state, and local agencies could get complicated the greater the number of agencies involved.
Nonetheless, we believe the downsides are outweighed by the upsides discussed below.
• AnSPFwouldprovideneededcapabilitiesandmightpayforitself, as it is cheaper than using military forces for policing tasks. – Establishing security ultimately requires a combination of both
military and policing efforts. SPF-like police forces are critical in conducting specialized patrols, countering organized crimi- nal groups, performing crowd and riot control, and training and mentoring indigenous high-end police. Police performed these tasks better than soldiers.
• ThelargeSPFoption(6,000personnel)wouldprovideadditional capabilities over the smaller options at a reasonable cost. The cost ($637 million for the hybrid option) is a relatively small price to pay for this capability. The additional capability increases the number, size, and types of contingencies that can be handled. The savings in costs from relieving military units of these mis- sions could be greater than the costs of creating an SPF, as mili- tary units are considerably more expensive to man, maintain, and deploy.
• GiventhatitisunlikelythatMPswouldbepermittedtoperform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the Marshals Service, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study. Placing the SPF in the Marshals Service would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option. Furthermore, the Marshals Service has the broad- est law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency and many of the required skills, though it would need to increase its capacity significantly. Furthermore, the Department of Justice stands at the center of the rule-of-law effort, with lead roles in policing, judiciary, and corrections efforts.
• Thehybridmodelprovidesthebestmixofskillsdevelopmentand readiness opportunities. This model provides the broadest police skills, does well on developing unit skills and quick mobilization times, and provides significant domestic policing and homeland security benefits by providing thousands of additional police offi- cers across the United States.
• If the decision is made to put the SPF in the Department of Defense, then the department should consider creating a new
civilian policing agency within the Department of the Army to accommodate it. As recently as 2005, the MP Corps was focused primarily on its combat mission, and had no intention of plac- ing an increased emphasis on stability policing. While this has changed since the surge of MP units into Iraq in 2006, there is no guarantee that this change is permanent. Furthermore, U.S. Army policy states a clear bias against creating units that special- ize in stability operations. A new civilian policing agency in the Department of the Army could create a policing orientation and leverage the institutional strengths of the Army to field the SPF. However, we believe that this would be less effective and more costly than the Marshals Service hybrid option.
These findings do not minimize the role that other U.S. agencies, especially the Department of Defense, must play in stability operations. The U.S. Army should continue to play a significant role in establishing security. U.S. Military Police will continue to be an essential player in the entire spectrum of policing tasks, especially in situations in which very large efforts and high levels of violence make their unique contri- bution invaluable. A civilian SPF must be deeply interlinked with other rule-of-law and law enforcement efforts and the U.S. military, espe- cially Military Police, to effectively establish security. Furthermore, a Marshals Service–based SPF would act as a force provider in critical situations. Indeed, we assess that it would be in the U.S. Army’s long- term interest to support the establishment of such a police force in the Department of Justice that can supplement its activities overseas.

Thanks for the summery. I look forward to reading the whole report.

It is my understanding that the perceived need for a "stability defense force" is due to the fact that the US cannot rely on the US military to attack it's own people and in "big situations" such as discussed in the OP, a police force sees it's own job as shooting armed US citizens as a primary job.

If there is something like an armed insurrection in the US, you can bet that many of the participants will be vets, including disabled vets. The concept of a US military officer giving the order to fire on a a bunch of flag and gun toting vets is not a choice, apparently, that Washington wants to bet on. This concept of a SPF has open similarities to the German SS.