The problem comes in when the "leaders" are not able to tell
the "good guys from the bad guys".... The first time a politician
tells his SWAT team to shoot up a house with a bunch of
children in it, and it hits the news, it will spread like wildfire
and
the practice will end.
We weren't able to do well in Vietnam or Afghanistan because
the good guys and the bad guys look alike, even when all of them
looked "different" from us....
Imagine the backlash when uniforms are told to shoot up their
next door neighbors, or a neighborhood when half the people are
supporting them and the other half aren't... Remember, the
"enemy" isn't wearning uniforms....
And, as soon as a couple instances are made public and
broadcast worldwide, the US government has enough high
tech enemies that will weigh in on the conflict..... just as the
US and others are weighing in on Syria, hoping to gain something
by arming the "rebels" and giving them high-tech support...
and weapons....

It is far more complex than "who has the most weapons today".....
Do you think for a minute that the government will nuke
Los Angeles just because it has some anti-government enemies...
....
It will ALWAYS come down to "boots on the ground", and they
really won't know who to shoot at...... just like Vietnam and
Afghanistan..... and we have far too good communications today to
let government propaganda be the dominant information........

No.... the politicians will be the targets, and the head of the
snake will be cut off......no matter how many legs they manage to
shoot off the "centipede" beforehand.....
and my guess is the top politicians will be killed by some of the
same people they hired to protect themselves.....

After all, if you were one of Hitler's bodyguards, wouldn't
you ?????