6 ms·
Do you think they wouldn't be able to keep you inside a house?
by geraldyo 4y ago
Do you think they wouldn't be able to keep you inside a house?
- gerbilly 4y agoYes, they could, but could they keep everyone in a city of millions in their houses though?
- marcosdumay 4y agoEasily. It's just a matter of running through the streets at random and punishing the people they caught badly enough.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoPretty much. In the Uyghur concentration camps they regularly gather up the victims of the camps and have them watch beatings and brutal rapes. I've read that in the testimony of several escapees from the camps. That plus everyone gets "minorly" tortured for not learning Chinese fast enough or minor transgressions like looking away/closing eyes/crying when told to watch a beating.
- jimmydorry 4y agoThey would ring fence the village / suburb. I don't see a major difference between nothing entering or leaving an apartment compared to entering or leaving the village / suburb. Both will run out of food in a similar time span.
- 0xy 4y agoYes. It's happened before. After the Boston Marathon bombing there was a "shelter-in-place" order given that prevented anyone from leaving their homes, and subjected residents to military rule (including door-to-door warrantless searches).
- Jerrrry 4y agoYes?
- bigDinosaur 4y agoIt'd be almost impossible to police, although you could in theory do it. An apartment building can have its main doors locked and bolted and guarded by a few police and that might trap hundreds of people.
- HWR_14 4y agoI mean, house arrest is less about guarding the doors and more about catching people out on the streets. Plus, you'd secure the stores (which are deigned to be locked up) to discourage people if you wanted to lock up an American suburb.
- neither_color 4y agoIn the short term it might work but if people start literally starving there's one tool that Americans are more likely to have and might start using. It would be total chaos.