Who's going to have time to "rebel" when food, water, protection and fire arms are even more scarce to the public, as well as dealing with widespread crime and looting? Do you think people are gonna travel across a nuclear wasteland dealing with bandits and a means of transportation and "rebel"? If a government collapses, you can't have an uprising. If the politicians did successfully divert excessive protection and supplies to themselves, there's nothing that could be done about it.
What would they do to rebel, is my question. When they can't so much as contact these higher figures that shut themselves in safety, where stepping outside your town, home, or whatever shelter their community/they alone posses is dangerous, and what would they even rebel for?
Shut themselves in safety? This isn't a Fallout game.
America rebelled for something as trivial as taxes. The above is more than enough motive.
Rebellion is always the same. The rebels either crush the opposition or the rebellion is defeated by a large and powerful force, which doesn't exist in a ruined world.
I need not describe the process, just look up any revolution and how they occured.
You mean having a rebellion..... would be .... risky? By that primitive logic, no revolution would ever occur.Originally Posted by SSBfreakCK
And let's say I'm wrong that many people wouldn't revolt; what would they do? How do you revolt in a land where survival is even harder than the driest, most poverty ridden summer a place like Mexico has ever had, and that's before you're trying to begin a rebellion? How would they even get the governments attention? If they had it, what would they even do?
A revolution after serious nuclear warfare is impossible.
A weakened government provides the best opportunity for a succesful revolution. Whether it will occur would require further details.Originally Posted by SSBfreakCK
Back on the subject of gang violence gaining power: Wouldn't that count as a form of government rebellion?