Vyor
My influence grows!
The power tranformers in the grid will all need repaired. This can take months.
In totality, yes, but the individual repairs wouldn't take much time. They'd start with the mission critical areas and work outwards.
The power tranformers in the grid will all need repaired. This can take months.
And that's fine. I just don't see why he couldn't say that instead of his actual argument.
This pessimistic conclusion was taken seriously by one of the first groups to devote real attention to the problems of disaster management: military strategists responsible for defending civilian targets from the ravages of the air-raid. In the aftermath of the First World War, air theorists understood that the potential of aerial campaigns had barely been explored. These men turned to Le Bon's ideas for guidance. The early air war theorists saw the bombing run as a way around the terrible attrition campaigns of the Western front. In the next war, they predicted, military aircraft would wreak devastation upon civilian targets mere days or hours after hostility began. These attacks would be enough to end the war altogether.
In the words of military historian Lawrence Freedman, Le Bon's work provided a "quasi-scientific basis" for this new theory of destruction. The strategists, tutored on Le Bon's grim view of the crowd, proposed that civilians unused to military discipline would surely meet the destruction of their cities with "panic on such a scale [that] their governments would have to abandon the war." British strategist J.F.C. Fuller described their visions of future warfare vividly: "if a fleet of 500 aeroplanes" came to London, he wrote, it would "throw the whole city into a panic within half an hour of their arrival." For several days, London would become "one vast raving Bedlam," where "the hospitals will be stormed, traffic will cease, [and] the homeless will shriek for help." As for the government, "it will be swept away by an avalanche of terror. Then will the enemy dictate his terms, which will be grasped at like a straw by a drowning man." For elites, the disastrous element of this hypothetical panic would be the loss of political control over the masses.
Unveiling the Myths of Fear
The first man to question the myth of panic was Charles Fritz. As an observer for the United States Army Air Corps during the Blitz, Fritz watched how the English responded to the bombing of London. He discovered that the air theorists drawing on Le Bon were wrong: in the face of death, the British public had not been reduced to hysteria. When Fritz was pulled into the United States Strategic Bombing Survey—a commission created to assess the failures and success of American bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan—a few years later, he came to a similar conclusion. Fire-bombing may have had important economic effects on the enemy war machine, but it did not result in mass panic. The survey's field research suggested the opposite: many bombed cities had higher morale than those spared attack.
Fritz continued this line of research once he returned to America. Ensconced as associate director of the University of Chicago's Disaster Research Project, Fritz poured over accounts of one natural disaster and industrial accident after another. He concluded that disasters "result however temporarily in what may be regarded as a kind of social utopia." "While the natural or human forces that precipitated the disaster appear hostile and punishing," Fritz observed, "the people who survive become more friendly, sympathetic, and helpful than in normal times." In disaster scenarios, shared fear and suffering create "an intimate group solidarity among the survivors." When the world suddenly falls apart, people do not grow more selfish, violent, or irrational, but more altruistic, caring, and calm.
Modern disaster sociology was born out of Fritz's research. Surveys conducted since then confirm his results. One literature review concludes—after describing the results of multiple surveys covering hundreds of building fires and floods, as well as dozens of hurricanes, tornadoes, airplane crashes, and terrorist attacks—that "systematic studies of human behavior in disasters have failed to support news accounts of widespread panic…Rather than panic or irrational behavior, what they found was that occupants became involved in protective activities such as warning others, calling the fire department, and rescuing or assisting others." Victims and bystanders of disaster tend to rush towards disaster zones, not flee mindlessly away from them; the greatest challenge facing many disaster response teams is not terrorized crowds, but an overload of volunteers who arrive to aid the response.
In totality, yes, but the individual repairs wouldn't take much time. They'd start with the mission critical areas and work outwards.
The problem is without establishing what a worst case scenario entails we really can't say anything. In this particular case I was envisioning this as an alternative to the nuke them till they glow strategy. Thus, should it have proven practical to do so, I would have aimed to render as close to a 100% of the planet's industrial civilization inert. In which case the number of cars would not have impacted the result.Mostly because my initial strong disagreement was with your predicted outcome. So, granting an EMP would have the material effect you suggested, people and society generally would not have the outcome you suggested.
I'm afraid I can't find the author as persuasive as you considering he cites our response to Covid as proof people don't panic while I saw that as confirmation that they do as people hoarded hand sanitizer, toilets paper, wore ineffectual masks, surrendered to house arrest and happily took vaccines which weren't vaccines and whose long term effects were maybe not the best understood. All this for a glorified flu bug with, IIRC, a 98+% survival rate. God help us if it had been something like the Spanish flu in 1918.in which case I believed your conclusion was still wrong, a form of the myth of panic that actual experience shows to generally be a myth.
What you appear to be describing is "socialism of the trenches". Yes, nothing brings a group together like a shared adversity. That's kind of the whole point of team building exercises and why Democrats love crisis's since it compels people to stop bickering and get in nice, easily to coral groups. But it's all predicated that there is relief coming at some point, that there is a "plan" in place.This is actually wrong, and in fact opposite of reality.
All of which require electrical power to utilize and in the case of radio requires relatively specialized equipment to both receive and transmit which not everyone will have. Generators could of course prove the power but require fuel to run. So even without trying too, simply by being part of a zone selected for invasion, both of these would likely become impaired from pre-war norms.A complex society actually is more likely a resilient society, because it generally will not have singular points of failure.
For example, taking out communication requires:
1) Taking out internet
2) Taking out radio
3) Taking out cell signal
Cars require fuel to run and along with bikes are most efficient on roads both of which likely are going to be impaired by orbital bombardment if only to try and hinder the defending army's movements. Further this is a dramatic reduction in communication both in speed and range and being reduced to this would likely already prove crippling.5) taking out cars
6) Taking out children on bikes
This is medieval era level of communication. Long before this any pretense of maintaining a 21st century society would have long since ended. By this point your entire "world" and sphere of knowledge has shrunk to your city and the surrounding countryside within walking distance.4) taking out printing press
7) Taking out town criers walking around ringing their bell.
Would be curious on how practical/impractical utilizing an EMP weapon might be as part of the lead up to invasion. The military would be hard-wired against it but I don't know how practical that would be to do for the civilian sector.
Best case scenario you'd plunge a large swath of the planet's population into a virtual dark age causing chaos and rioting from lack of services to transportation of food and other goods being disrupted. Further hinder and tie up the planet's resources as they try to deal with that and my invading army.
Yes, I postulated plunging the world back to the dark age would lead to, among other things, chaos and rioting. Your argument against boiled down to how many cars the world had missing, in my view, the entire point I was suggesting.@Crom's Black Blade
Lets look at your initial claim:
So, using your assumption that "plunging a large swath of the planet's population into a virtual dark age" would cause "chaos and rioting".
Thus, part of your argument was the effects of an EMP could lead to "chaos and rioting". This I take issue with, as said.
So, is your argument that during covid, you had panic leading to "chaos or rioting"? Is "wore ineffectual masks, surrendered to house arrest and happily took vaccines which weren't vaccines and whose long term effects were maybe not the best understood" chaos and riot?
Or is it extreme submission to authority and orderlyness? You seem to be using an example of order as an example of chaos.
I object to the description of this as the socialism of the trench, because its not socialism. It much more that people behave normally. Your assumption depends on people acting abnormally. Relief and a plan are hardly necessary either, though their nice of course.
Yes, I postulated plunging the world back to the dark age
It won't be back to the dark ages. 1920s era technologies is about far back as you can push someone without deliberately searching for and destroying books. Vacuum tubes and electromechanical equipment can all be made with hand tools and lathes.Yes, I postulated plunging the world back to the dark age would lead to, among other things, chaos and rioting. Your argument against boiled down to how many cars the world had missing, in my view, the entire point I was suggesting.
Fair point, fair point.It won't be back to the dark ages. 1920s era technologies is about far back as you can push someone without deliberately searching for and destroying books. Vacuum tubes and electromechanical equipment can all be made with hand tools and lathes.
You really can't "counter" my theory because I also appeal to human nature and historical precedent. In some cases the same precedent ala Covid. We simply have very differing viewpoints of humanity which leads us to very different expectations. Short of actually ending world civilization I'm not sure we can decisively make the other change their mind.My opinion is mans default state is to do what he's told and not rock the boat. If there's uncertainty, people generally become paralyzed, not aggressively go out and murder people. My counter to your theory of chaos and rioting is to appeal to human nature and historical precedent. Rioting is hard and generally takes organization, and a political decision to allow it. Or troops/police to stop following commands.
Ah, but as you said the argument wasn't about the feasibility. It was over whether or not people would riot even in a "worst case".The number of cars deals with the question of likelihood of falling back into the dark age, which is basically zero: the level of success the EMP would have to achieve is so absurdly high that the chance of achieving that kind of effect is small. Very few things of this nature have 95% success rates over large areas. Its just not how such effects generally work: direct nuclear detonations don't have that level of impact. Examples instead place EMP effects as being very small and quite manageable.
So, off the top of my head that's 20-30 million adults who can be mobilized and directed to productive ends who will have minimal short term impact by directing them to something else.
Those locations are mostly centers of services and corporate headquarters. The physical location of production facilities, farms and factories, is far more evenly spread out.Now, that does suggest if you can hit the right 5%, you can also cripple 50% of the economy. For a time. Left to their own devices, generally that 5% can be regenerated, or reconstituted elsewhere. Meaning its still a limited window of vulnerability.
You really can't "counter" my theory because I also appeal to human nature and historical precedent. In some cases the same precedent ala Covid. We simply have very differing viewpoints of humanity which leads us to very different expectations. Short of actually ending world civilization I'm not sure we can decisively make the other change their mind.
For myself I don't think rioting or mobs is very hard or takes much organization. Just one guy who throws the first rock and isn't stopped. Whether due to authorities politically deciding not to intervene or simply being unable too.
Ah, but as you said the argument wasn't about the feasibility. It was over whether or not people would riot even in a "worst case".
Not to say, even ignoring that, your argument was flawed for reasons I outlined earlier and others. Like the herculean logistical effort it would take for random civilian vehicles to take over the role of transporting goods across the country/world. Or take this suggestion/idea of yours:
To which I'd ask how are you going to mobilize and organize these tens of millions of people, what are they going to be trained to do and who is going to teach them? And what if they don't want too or are unable to be retrained?
Those locations are mostly centers of services and corporate headquarters. The physical location of production facilities, farms and factories, is far more evenly spread out.
Well the idea is it only takes one person to do something and not be stopped for others to follow suit. The broken window theory were as soon as it's shown that you'll accept a broken window others will start breaking them collectively as individuals.Throwing rocks don't just organically turn into a riot without pre-existing social organizations and groups to exploit it. Can you explain why someone throwing a rock will induce you to riot?
Over time? No. I'd agree you could draw upon this as a resource even. But we're talking months if not years to accomplish. While you give the impression this will be an easy, quick fix.Is your opinion a government that currently employs 30 million people (all levels local, state, and federal) has no ability to mobilize an additional 10-30 million over time?
Yes. I commented on it in fact earlier and in no way am i assuming people wouldn't be motivated to help. My argument was rooted primarily in the pragmatists. I don't think a 100% of any group will be willing to completely uproot and reorganize their life so I asked what do you do with those unable or unwilling to be retrained.Are you unaware of what happens in any natural disaster or war?
Work or starve is a double edge sword. One that if you don't back up with machine guns, drawing needed resources from elsewhere, is just as likely to cause the rioting as prevent it. Because you've now created a division between those who are being fed and those who are either unable or unwilling to qualify. So any solidarity the two groups had have now been divided.Assuming the government stays organized, which even in our earlier worst case is a given, that means the government are the ones with food in the worst case, and thus can mobilize quite a few on the "if any would not work, neither should he eat".
Okay, all jokes aside this just struck me as a little depressing. Like maybe I'm a mutant but I don't desire to be "productive" in the same sense you apparently do. I take pride in my job, that I do it well and have had multiple bosses compliment and thank me for what I do. That it was this sense of accomplishment that mattered regardless how mediocre the job itself may have been. Wouldn't matter if you had me in a room counting hairs on a caterpillar.If my current bureaucratic job was made irrelevant, I would look to my immediate boss and coworkers for a new job, because being productive gets food on the table, and favor of the people with guns.
The issue with the police, the electrical department or even the post office isn't a lack of a pool of bodies they could potentially throw at things. Its having the resources to either find the people with the required skills or the ability to train them. As well as equip them with the tools/equipment to perform their job.I would go a block down the street to the police building and see if they can use anyone, either on a temporary position (I have enough food supplies to not be at immediate risk, and can thus volunteer to help avoid short term chaos until a more permanent solution is available). If the police don't directly need me, I have a friend of a friend in the post office and the electrical department, and they are likely to need people to throw at problems, and as critical infrastructure people in those industries would have priorities.
And when there isn't "a new job"? That the reduced number of things that need or can be done in this post-disaster scenario are smaller than the total pool of candidates? Or the flow of food takes longer to organize or is being diverted to set up these labor battalions which are coming?What strikes you has more likely: mild mannered office drones become Mad Max psychos in a week, or are they more likely to just look for a new job? Life goes on, and things still need to be done. And the useful generally will have a better chance of survival than the useless. Maybe during the initial attacks we bunker down, a lock down of sorts, but while not under immediate attack, there will be jobs. Given enough time one may eventually be conscripted into the military or labor battalions of some sort.
Are we still talking about the immediate aftermath of an orbital strike (with EMP to trip circuit breakers) to clear a landing zone for an invasion force? Because this feels more like we've wandered over to the discussion of what happens months after civilization's been bombed to rubble and the invaders have gotten bored and left.And when there isn't "a new job"? That the reduced number of things that need or can be done in this post-disaster scenario are smaller than the total pool of candidates? Or the flow of food takes longer to organize or is being diverted to set up these labor battalions which are coming?
I don't expect officer workers to become Lord Humongous overnight but I don't expect them either to just sit quietly twiddling their thumbs in happy contentment waiting for the chance to be "productive" again.
Well the idea is it only takes one person to do something and not be stopped for others to follow suit. The broken window theory were as soon as it's shown that you'll accept a broken window others will start breaking them collectively as individuals.
Which is likely the biggest difference between our views of humanity. I tend to assume humans are, at their core, individualistic, pack animals. That we will work together but our reasoning is centered on what benefits us. You, from what I can gather, take a more humans are collectivist, herd animals.
For instance you refer to my view as illogical but to me there's nothing illogical about pursuing your own interests. The only way an animal can survive and pass on their genes to the next generation is if they do that. Which is why self-sacrifice is so noble and inspiring because it is *more* than we are.
As for historical precedent I already pointed to our response to Covid on how people can panic and make subpar decisions that are poor for them and the group. I can point to Black Lives Matters who could and would riot over thedrop of a hatperceived injustice. One could certainly make the case culture matters and the particular reasons BLM rioted were political in nature but I don't think that changes the core nature that, given free volition, people chose to be destructive and violent in fiery but mostly peaceful looting.
Your argument against this is a little vague, at least from my point of view. The article you linked cites, in part, the failure of strategic bombing to instantly force the enemy nation surrender but you seem to take what even it explained was a short-term solidarity and project it as a permanent, "true humanity" that will last no matter what.
Over time? No. I'd agree you could draw upon this as a resource even. But we're talking months if not years to accomplish. While you give the impression this will be an easy, quick fix.
You have to organize a pipeline to put these people through, someone to locate them, all the necessary support to feed, clothes and house them during this, the people to train them. Not all of the 30 million government employees may have the necessary skills, abilities or resources to accomplish this and some of them may even be needed to keep doing their current duties. while I'm sure we could cut a lot of government bloat just organizing them into something that could organize the tens of millions of other people would take time.
In the context of an opening days of a planetary invasion, if you haven't already started tapping into this pool, it likely would be far too little, far too late too matter.
Yes. I commented on it in fact earlier and in no way am i assuming people wouldn't be motivated to help. My argument was rooted primarily in the pragmatists. I don't think a 100% of any group will be willing to completely uproot and reorganize their life so I asked what do you do with those unable or unwilling to be retrained.
Work or starve is a double edge sword. One that if you don't back up with machine guns, drawing needed resources from elsewhere, is just as likely to cause the rioting as prevent it. Because you've now created a division between those who are being fed and those who are either unable or unwilling to qualify. So any solidarity the two groups had have now been divided.
Okay, all jokes aside this just struck me as a little depressing. Like maybe I'm a mutant but I don't desire to be "productive" in the same sense you apparently do. I take pride in my job, that I do it well and have had multiple bosses compliment and thank me for what I do. That it was this sense of accomplishment that mattered regardless how mediocre the job itself may have been. Wouldn't matter if you had me in a room counting hairs on a caterpillar.
But this seems like something else. I've always view work as a sort of trade of my skills/labor in exchange for payment. But you almost seem to describe it as a relation between Master and pet. That you want to be a good boy and get head pats/rewards from your boss, gain the favor of the people with guns.
The issue with the police, the electrical department or even the post office isn't a lack of a pool of bodies they could potentially throw at things. Its having the resources to either find the people with the required skills or the ability to train them. As well as equip them with the tools/equipment to perform their job.
Similar the issue isn't whether or not you have supplies for the immediate future. It wasn't like the people hoarding toilette paper all had ran out at the same moment. But rather when faced with an uncertainty of the future people try to rush out and stock up to last the immediate further and then some. And they all have this idea usually roughly at the same time which leads to shortages.
So you might walk down to the police station, and potentially turned away because they can't afford to hire you, and screw yourself over in the longer term because the stores have been picked bare.
And when there isn't "a new job"? That the reduced number of things that need or can be done in this post-disaster scenario are smaller than the total pool of candidates? Or the flow of food takes longer to organize or is being diverted to set up these labor battalions which are coming?
I don't expect officer workers to become Lord Humongous overnight but I don't expect them either to just sit quietly twiddling their thumbs in happy contentment waiting for the chance to be "productive" again.
I would say we simply have different ideas of "self-interest". From what I can gather you view the group is in people's self-interest and therefore you assume any action that goes against the group is against one's own self-interest.Strange, since your prediction seems to be that people are by default irrational pack animals who will be possessed by animal spirits to do irrational, self destructive things, while I assume people are generally individual, self interested, certainly at least on the scale of their family, and actually generally rational once their future discounting is taken into account.
I would say it would be more accurate that I believe everyone will attempt to pursue their own interests as they believe them to be. Said actions, due to tragedy of the commons or the individuals lack of foresight, can lead to negative outcomes for themselves or the group as a whole.Your entire theory seems to rely on people doing stupid impulsive and self destructive things, thus the "panic". To operate against their own self interest.
Oh BLM is politically motivated and I would agree they only took place, at least to the extent that they did, because the Authorities either could not or would not intervene. But it shows even in a prosperous nation on the mildest of pretext there were plenty of people were willing, even eager, to do irrational, destructive things. And thus if these same people were put into an actual crisis were the system was breaking down it likely wouldn't be hard to push them into it again.Black lives matter is actually an argument for my position, because it was so clearly a policy position and organized: it happened because the people in power wanted it to happen. If instead of Covid we were gearing up for a war, or about to be in war, do you think Trump would not have had the military on the streets in hours? And it generally did not occur in places that were particularly desperate: I for example live in a generally poor, but Republican state. We had (limit) BLM protests, for a few days, but no riots. Because it would not be tolerated.
My bad, that was my fault. I meant of their own volition.Maybe I just don't see there being this stage of "free violation" in any serious sense.
Okay, so your argument is that a Western nation, the US being the example, has so many soldiers and police and security guards that they could maintain order. And further if that proved insufficient, people have guns to defend themselves or their place of business. So looting could not be an issue.On top of that, we have roughly 700,000 cops, 2 million military soldiers. Mobilized that about 3 million enforcement agents, who would all be mobilized in the lead up to an invasion. We also have a million security guards, who are going to be operating under far looser ROE, every sheriff is going to deputize people left and right, and local buiseness owners are going to grab their own guns and bring their own little possi of armed guards and employees with baseball bats, where is this room and support for mass rioting?
what skills are you imagining need to be done in the first couple of days? Those first days are stopping the bleeding, which involve a many unskilled brute labor: walking around with clip boards to build a census of how many are in an area for determining emergency food delivery, carrying water to populated area and carrying out waste, removing damaged stuff in the way. Carrying mail if fuel needs to be preserved (so, the regular post man is assigned 10-20 mail carriers as he leads them around to keep the mail flowing). General delivery and shuttle services.
Well, unmotivated people who want to hide in their house and starve I guess hide in their house and starve. Those who want something from the community, such as food or fuel, when they come to a local aid station get their name and skills added to the lists, and those who wish to continue to receive aid will do the tasks assigned to them. They can also get a job, since its not like the economy disappears.
This is where your claim of rationality breaks down: why would you, a starving individual, attack the people with the food and guns?
Most people have jobs. They work to eat. If your a very devote Christian, you also value productivity in and of itself, but generally work is the unpleasant thing you do to get paid. Because of shortages, your likely going to have to work more to earn less, but life is life. I have my current job because its not too hard and makes as much money as I need to support a lifestyle I'm happy with. If I wanted more money, I could work in a coal mine and triple my income, but that would suck more and I don't feel I need that money. Part of the described strategy above is so, assuming the crisis continues I can find a relatively cushy job so I can work 10 hours a day to see sorting mail in the sun for 10 cans of beans and 10 lbs of coal so the family doesn't freeze or starve, but I do get to see the family and not work too hard, rather than either being conscripted or having no choice but to volunteer and take a job mining coal with a pick axe for 10 cans and 50 lbs of coal a day, not seeing the family for a week as the bus only delivers a shift to the mine every week.
Work is all about making enough money doing something minimally unpleasant compared to what enough money is.
I just don't see how there would not be work. The work will likely suck more and pay less, but people still need to eat and not freeze, which require work to secure and produce more resources. If that does require harvesting wood or coal by hand with axe and pick, maybe I even would take that job just because it is more productive and better paying than the alternatives. And if a war is still ongoing, the military will certainly have things that need doing. Which may still involve unpleasant mining underground, but, a wage is a wage. Or you just get concripted.
I would say we simply have different ideas of "self-interest". From what I can gather you view the group is in people's self-interest and therefore you assume any action that goes against the group is against one's own self-interest.
I would say it would be more accurate that I believe everyone will attempt to pursue their own interests as they believe them to be. Said actions, due to tragedy of the commons or the individuals lack of foresight, can lead to negative outcomes for themselves or the group as a whole.
Oh BLM is politically motivated and I would agree they only took place, at least to the extent that they did, because the Authorities either could not or would not intervene. But it shows even in a prosperous nation on the mildest of pretext there were plenty of people were willing, even eager, to do irrational, destructive things. And thus if these same people were put into an actual crisis were the system was breaking down it likely wouldn't be hard to push them into it again.
Okay, so your argument is that a Western nation, the US being the example, has so many soldiers and police and security guards that they could maintain order. And further if that proved insufficient, people have guns to defend themselves or their place of business. So looting could not be an issue.
Now the reason why I can't agree with the above is as follows. For starters I feel adding the police as part of the forces being mobilized kind of feels like your inflating the number. The police are already dealing with the current situation, let alone the influx of a crisis, so there 700,000 isn't really being added to help anything. And by the same token, if there is an invasion going on, I don't think the entire armed forces could be spared just for riot control.
You certainly could recruit/repurpose security guards but they aren't police officers necessarily and will have more variable training. They also will have to be recruited and organized which will take time. And time is the pressing factor ticking in the background.
On the subject of people defending themselves, yes that's certainly a possibility but that alone is not necessarily a deterrent from unlawful, violent behavior's. Instead you have simply made it that whoever has the larger number of guns that day can do what they want.
You also have far more faith than I do in the Goverment to be competent and make the right decision. I'm far from certain all States would loosen ROE against looters. In fact I think it's not too far fetched that some may crack down on the victims for their own petty, illogical reasons.
Manhattan garage worker charged with attempted murder after shooting thief
A Manhattan parking garage attendant who was shot twice while confronting an alleged thief — then wrestled the gun away and opened fire on the suspect — has been charged with attempted …nypost.com
You also feel that there will be plenty of low skill grunt jobs during a crisis. You cited clearing damaged objects out of the way, delivering mail by foot, carrying and extracting water and waste among others. And I would agree these are all jobs that would have to be done and are low entry in terms of skill. Where I would disagree is how many out of the population are suited to do these jobs and, out of that number, what is the comparison to the total number of jobs. How many people with clipboards or water carriers do you need.
And of course all of this can't operate in a vacuum. There has to be some kind of organization or leadership to send out the people with the clipboards and tabulate their results and arrange or secure supplies to be brought in. Thus it's not just a case of things needing to be done but that things people are willing/able to pay for in whatever the desired medium is.
I feel your answer also avoids the issue of needed jobs that do require skills/training. Police and Electrical engineers, to use two of your previous examples, are not low skill jobs but would likely be in demand. Even the post office, beyond just blindly following a mailman on his rounds, likely involves some training to properly sort the letters efficiently for delivery.
Thirdly, your rational for why people wouldn't riot is that it is nonsensical because they could just sign up and work a job to be paid in food and fuel. This, I fear, makes the error presupposing your biases onto the situation. There are many reasons why someone might revolt against the the food and guns. First and foremost both of those are a means to hold power over the individual which you seem to view as a net positive but can just as much sow division and fragment groups. On a most basic level if a Government is relying solely on the fact they have food and guns as their legitimacy they've largely opened the spot to anyone with the force of will and ability to take both those things. The comparison to this and being paid for work also rests on the assumption of similar stability. If there's doubt or perception said Government might not be able to cash their checks next week then that might convince you to take the cashbox today.
Touching upon this further, it feels like your assuming any crisis will be a short-lived affair and then start immediately getting better as the bleeding is staunched. I myself tend to think it would almost be the opposite. Imagine New York and San Francisco being invaded via drop-pod troopers attempting to contest and take the cities while roadways and bridges are hammered from orbit to try and slow/hinder the defending army from maneuvering in response. Things would initially be fairly okay for everyone not in the direct line of fire but as supplies that were supposed to be in transit sit in a warehouse or get destroyed the shortages would get worse as time progresses long before they get any better