Revolutions typically only involve a small part of the population. January 6th only involved a couple thousand people and the fact they didn’t massacre congress and have a successful coup as a fait accompli was more down to the lack of dedication of the coup attempt than to the successful defensive efforts of the US government.

In a more hard-fought revolution, the people that take to the front lines are typically the ones who feel physically and strategically capable of doing so. Other people can handle the logistics, planning, and propaganda.

What tactics the rebels would use is kind of unanswerable because there isn’t a revolution happening tomorrow. The tactic current rebels use is to hide, train, recruit quietly, and propagandize. They choose this tactic because they know they aren’t in a position to win a revolution that starts tomorrow. If we imagine a world where a revolution would happen tomorrow, we have to imagine the world being different from ours in certain ways that cause the rebels to adopt different tactics that constitute “starting a revolution”.

Depending on the specific ways we imagine the world to be different, the rebels would adapt different tactics. The US military could stage a coup and arrest Trump as quickly as they kidnapped Maduro, then install an interim government to organize fair elections. There could be a surge of popular outrage resulting in swarm tactics that overwhelm key government buildings before adequate defense is raised. There could be a protracted civil war as rebels destroy military-industrial infrastructure while accepting aid from the US’ many enemies, with rebels having trained in secret militias and learning more on the go.

The problem with this type of violence is that when it does eventually happen, it will be the christo-fascists vs everyone that doesn’t want to be forced to live their way. The morally right side of this conflict is going to have to fight the christian nationalists AND the US government. I won’t submit to defeatism, but it’s going to be grim.

The US has 300 million people in it. If even one percent of them decided to pick up a brick and go to Washington DC there isn’t an army on earth that could stop them.

Revolutions are fought by a tiny minority against another tiny minority while everyone else just tries to stay alive.

Point is, the side that wins is generally the side that has the most people in the right place.

The US is basically one big unhardened underbelly.

The US puts most of its effort into creating the appearance of strength rather than strength itself, and its been baked into the military doctrine since the 1950/60s with Korea. Copaganda (shows like 24 or Cops), the Military-Industrial-Film complex (Top gun, too many movies to list), comic book movies (good guys have to always do the more “moral” thing), the shock and awe doctrine; you can genuinely attach the US’s security posture almost directly to one guy: Robert McNamara. This idea of creating the appearance of the thing being as effective as the thing is fundamental to US hegemony, and its currently falling apart. The man behind the curtain was never meant to be revealed because the theatrics were supposed to be so impressive you would never even consider trying to reveal them.

Take a look at Russias invasion of Ukraine, and consider the implications of what it means to have un-hardened infrastructure. Now the US continues to believe itself to be invulnerable in this regard, but consider, what would be the implications of an oil pipeline disruption at this current moment? Trump brags about how the US is relatively secure in regards to oil production, twice as much as the next blah blah blah.

Those pipelines run for hundreds of miles basically defenseless.

Nice try, Trump.

Who said it will be civilians