How effectivly could an armed population resist genocide?


PDA






iapetus
September 23, 2004, 06:42 AM
I recently responded to a thread about the AWB on a left-wing bulliten board. (I won't link it, unless anyone insists, it'll just make your heads explode. Worse than DU for mindless insults etc).

I posed the question "What would have happened if all the Jews, Slavs, etc in Europe had been well-armed, and prepared to fight? Could the Holocaust have happened?"

And got a hail of replies rubbishing the idea it could have made any difference.


Exactly what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. 6,000 Jews died, 22 Germans.

Ask the Native Americans if having a few rifles is much of a defence against a fully equipped professional army.

If an army can't defeat civilians with rifles I don't know why you bother to have one.

This is the most idiotic pro-gun argument I have heard. Apart from the one that says the constitution says you can stage an armed insurrection against the government.


But it did get me thinking - how effective would civilian guns really be in such a situation? After all, the Nazis were willing to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths fighting in at the front, and the soldiers were willing to go to their deaths, so would they not also be willing to go to theor deaths to round up armed Jews etc?


Would the RKBA (and will to use it) have any real use, other than giving you the option of a Heroic Last Stand (rather than dying on you knees from a shot to the back of the head)?

If you enjoyed reading about "How effectivly could an armed population resist genocide?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Tharg
September 23, 2004, 07:13 AM
I guess this one would have been better asked of the jews who were there.

You will always have sheeple who believe that they won't be hurt... well untill they are in the kiln and wondering why its getting hot.

Fact is that those jews DID lose thier lives - but they held that front for quite some time. Now imagine them having better weapons because the germans didn't "disarm" them... imagine 6000 of US, people who are willing to buy and learn to use our weapons. Then imagine somone of sufficient mind to lead those people - and you have an epic tale of the like of braveheart or the patriot...

For someone to defend themselves they must first have the inclination to do so. THEN they must have the forsight to know they can't do it alone. Then they must have the ability to be led. There are a LOT of if's... but those if's came together when we decided we didn't want the british to control us any longer. In the case of the indians - they were too busy fighting themselves as well as the white man to have ever provided for and maintained a defense. They also were much more attached to traditions that made them weak. (this all in my humble opine - not to be taken as fact by ANY means)

So ... if a sufficient number of americans believed that thier government must be overthrown - i don't know.... this day and age surveilance is king - and the government has it in spades - be it satellites or reconnisanse (spelling?) drones/vehicles. if you know where yer enemy is - then airstrikes/movemnt of armour will defeat about anyone. If the country desintegrated into rebellious "outposts" then a group of gunmen would prolly have a better chance. It would take a majority of the states, to include people on the inside to effectively "overthrow" the government that didn't want overthrown now a days.

On the other hand - the "vote from the rooftops" would be the only real means of fighting an advanced technology - as the iraq war continue to show us. Small groups - causing double or triple or better the damages to our superior forces as we do to them. This is because NO standing army is prepared for this kind of attack. Its why gurrilia warefare is so effective - no one can defend everywhere everytime 100% of the time. If the enemy is determined you get what the afgans did to russia... more dmg then you wanted to take for little to no gain. This is the outcome i'm afraid will happen in iraq - this is the time the people of iraq have to stand up and support the cause to free themselves - or it will just disintegrate and we will be blamed for "not finishing something" again.

So - does the argument stand? yes - it does. if there was enough of a movement and the people are not disarmed first - they CAN mount an attack on a unruly government... it won't be pretty - but revolution rarely is. It won't be the "typical war" because revolutionaries are invariably fighting against a larger and superior force.

To put it in perspective - imagine a civil war happening today. Where state militia's and national guard units would be faithful to thier homes, where the military in general would be torn in half since some come from here and some from there - some believe one way some the other. Splintering would be the norm for the regular units, some would go north some south. Bases would probably become aligned w/ thier land... and it would be an interesting model to put through a computer. As said it wouldn't be pretty - but we would have a defense... where in a different world... that we were disarmed, we would be against those who controlled the power bases of the military/guard. With no one from home to "join the fight" it would seem hopeless to defect, as defeat would be nearly assured. Then several years later it would be normal soldiers caught in the crossfire hoping that thier "I was just following orders" defense would stand.

i'm blathering tho - brandy does that to a man. Please don't take me TOOOO literally - but its how i'm invisioning it at the moment.

J/Tharg!

edit - also - if ONE jew took out ONE german for every jew that died - it would have been a shorter war.....

seeker_two
September 23, 2004, 07:13 AM
How effectivly could an armed population resist genocide?

Far more effectively than an unarmed population can...

The Army didn't defeat the Indians...the buffalo hunters wiping out the Indians' food source did. Had the Indians taken decisive action against them, the Indian Wars may have had a different ending.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was tied up thousands of Nazi troops in an action that only failed b/c the Nazi's surrounded the Jews. Had the Jews gotten out & started an effective resistance (i.e. France), things may have turned out different. On this one, I'll defer to Oleg. He has a better grasp of this point than I do.

Compare these to the genocides in Rwanda, the Soviet Union, and Nepal. Thousands dead in a matter of DAYS--not weeks (Warsaw) or years (Indians). And for every failed armed uprising, you can name a successful one (American Revolution, French Revolution, Viet Cong, French Resistance, Kurds in Iraq, etc.)

Plus, you can appeal to "common sense"...if firearms are so useless in a conflict, why do all the soldiers have one? :scrutiny:

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time on that particular board. The Kool-Aid sounds too potent there... :rolleyes:

jpIII
September 23, 2004, 10:04 AM
how effective would civilian guns really be in such a situation?

If I recall correctly, some citizens armed with nothing but "civilian guns" gave their government quite a headache back in 1776. If you ask me, I would classify them as "effective".:p

Of course, they weren't fighting against genocide. I'd imagine that it would be even more of an incentive.

entropy
September 23, 2004, 10:11 AM
The question begs the asking here, and it would be fun to post it on the forum that you were on, iapetus;
Would you rather die fighting for your life, and those of your loved ones, and ilk, or would your rather be led quietly to the 'showers'?
Those who say, "It can't happen here." are ignorant of history, as well as what is going on around them in the present. This country, and indeed, the world, is ripe for a tyrant to take the reins, and could indeed do so at any time.
BTW, the Second Amendment is the means that provides for the possibility of making true Jefferson's statement the "from tme to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants"
I don't think a civil war today would be regional, ie, North/South, so much as urban/rural or pro/ anti .gov, more like the Rev. War, where your neighbor could be the Tory.
The situation today is more like Germany in the early to mid '30's, what with the increase of invasion of privacy, the encouragement of 'informing', particularly towards children, the mass indoctrination of children towards dependency on the state instead of family, etc. Fortunately, "Kristallnacht" hasn't happened yet, and isn't yet inevitable, but we must be constantly alert and prevent it. The Second Amendment, and those who own firearms, are what scares the bejeesus out of those who would loose the JBT's. Ironically, those who hide behind the First Amendment, and attack us who stand by the Second, are in for a big surprise when the Second is invalidated, because the First will be right after it, and there will be some extremely pissed unarmed media types being led to the showers...:uhoh:

WT
September 23, 2004, 10:20 AM
Since the Muslims are waging a war of extermination against America, I think we will get a chance to find out.

Monday's THE NEW YORK POST reported how poorly prepared NYC is to handle 800,000 to 1,000,000 casualties from an atomic bomb. On CNN I see that Los Angeles is planning for 200,000 casualties.

What is London, Chicago, Houston, Billings ...... preparing for?

How will the typical American armed with a shotgun, rifle or pistol stand up to small pox, nuclear bombs or poison gas?

gigmike
September 23, 2004, 10:23 AM
There's more to be said on this topic, but at the very least the holocaust wouldn't have gained the momentum it did as it was unopposed. Also, armed resistance would have alerted the rest of the world as to the scope of what was happening.

Chipperman
September 23, 2004, 10:25 AM
You can also bring up Viet Nam and Afghanistan. Clearly superior military powers were beaten by geurilla tactics and inferior weponry.

Now they were not fighting against genocide, but the point still stands.

Now if the military just calls in air strikes until the entire country is rubble, then there's not a lot you can do. But no war can be completely fought without boots on the ground.

geekWithA.45
September 23, 2004, 10:30 AM
In any situation where a strong military force oppresses a weaker citizenry, there will be citizens who will advocate for collaboration, based on the notion that "they'll only take the sick/weak/troublemakers (first), and leave the rest of us alone (till later)".

I can't recall the gentleman's name, but I remember reading an article about one such leader in the ghettoes.

I'd suggest that your leftist would be a good candidate for that role.




But let me frame my response this way.

In many cases, especially early on in the pogrom, when the outcome of the activities of shuffling people around in freight cars was still ambiguous and subject to psychological denial, hundreds of people would be gathered at the station, guarded by relatively few riflemen, as few as a dozen or so.


Ask anyone who's ever shot the "el presidente" stage in respectable time what he thinks the outcome would be.


Ask anyone who's ever nailed 5 or 6 steel targets in 5 seconds what the outcome would be.

Given two or three competent handgunners with some spare ammo, a few minutes to coordinate, and the element of surprise, the odds of a positive military outcome of the "railroad platform people rescue themselves" scenario are pretty good.

The odds of the hundreds of people subsequently taking maximum advantage doing something effective, like running, hiding, and not being caught aren't as high, as people have the unfortunate tendency to do what they're told, even when it's blatantly against their best interests.

The bottom line: Your opponent in the forum debate has already decided that any scenario of serious oppression is unwinnable, which automatically hands a victory to the oppressor. If god forbid such a situation should occur, it'll be guys like you and me taking fire so that guys like him will have that opportunity to run and hide, and more likely than not flubbing it.

ReadyontheRight
September 23, 2004, 10:42 AM
Well -- It's worked for 200+ years in the U.S. Aside from some dark events around Native Americans and Blacks in the South, no one would even consider such a thing with an armed populace out there.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/stopKKK_s.jpg

Firethorn
September 23, 2004, 10:58 AM
I remember reading about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising a while back.

Some points to make:
[list=1]
The resistance didn't have many operational firearms. Captured:
a: 9 rifles
b: 59 pistols (many inoperable)
c: several hundred grenades, explosives and mines
d: Ammo was very limited (they were mostly out in less than three days)
The ghetto inhabitants were already weakened
The German's reported "22" casualties were drasticly underreported.
a: This source said 18 dead, 84 wounded for the entire operation (http://www.adl.org/uprising/Warsaw.asp)
b: 200 dead or wounded in the first day? (http://www.socialismtoday.org/75/warsaw43.html)
It took a month, rather than the expected two days to take out the place
They had to essentially burn the ghetto down
They used equipment and resources that were needed on other fronts to put down the resistance. Artillery and Soldiers that were needed on the front lines had to be used in Warsaw.
[/list=1]

50-60 thousand people and less than a hundred guns? Can you really call that an armed uprising? Now just imagine it happening in a population with at least 50% of households owning at least one gun. Add in households owning more guns than they have family members, and you'll probably dredge up around 15-20 thousand firearms, and enough ammo to supply them for a year.

Forget taking the place, you'd have to destroy it.

SADshooter
September 23, 2004, 11:25 AM
I applaud all the cogent responses, but for me this one is even simpler. The effectiveness of armed resistance to genocide is irrelevant, because the alternative should be unacceptable.

Ktulu
September 23, 2004, 11:46 AM
Ask the Native Americans if having a few rifles is much of a defence against a fully equipped professional army.

Ask Custer that same question.

The effectiveness of armed resistance to genocide is irrelevant, because the alternative should be unacceptable.

That's it exacty. Die or your feet or die on your knees.

Oleg Volk
September 23, 2004, 11:48 AM
Even a suspicion that the victim may be armed requires using several soldiers or police per prisoner, as anything else would cost dead soldiers. So the amount of resources to take on even a few thousand people would be pretty extreme and couldn't be done quickly or quietly. Assassination would be an option, but that would work both ways after a short while.

And (armed) US Indians fared much better than Australian aborigenes who lacked guns.

Zach S
September 23, 2004, 11:50 AM
I think more died as a result of diseases from Europe that their immune systems didnt know how to handle, rather than in battle.

Pilgrim
September 23, 2004, 12:00 PM
The Army didn't defeat the Indians...the buffalo hunters wiping out the Indians' food source did. Had the Indians taken decisive action against them, the Indian Wars may have had a different ending.

I believe the major factor in the defeat of the plains Indians was the willingness of the U.S. Army to campaign against them in the winter. Once the Army found the Indians' winter quarters, destroyed their lodges and their stored supply of food, the Indians were helpless.

Pilgrim

Fudgie Ghost
September 23, 2004, 12:06 PM
SadShooter: but that's just it: There are people, probably more than one realizes, that don't believe ANYTHING is worth dying over---any cause or principle, that is. (They might sacrifice themselves for their children, spouse, parents or friends). Others feel that resistance unto death is a noble thing--for it's own sake.

This fact is what really seperates those who see the utility of resistance, even if it IS doomed, and those who see colloaboration, as simply surviving.

This is an interesting idea. Picture yourself in France after the Germans had overun most of it, and the government had signed the cease-fire, armstice, whatever it was. For Joe-blow, the war was over. Why risk torture and death to oneself and kith and kin, getting involved with the maquis? Most people just want to go about their business. Does this make all of them quislings and cowards?

We all like to think were bad-ass hombres, but when they start pulling the fingernails out, living as a conquered nation might not seem so bad.

Not saying this is the best course, or the right one---just that it's easy to say how tough one is when you're young, healthy, well-fed, have indoor plumbing ,etc.

Pilgrim
September 23, 2004, 12:07 PM
The Army didn't defeat the Indians...the buffalo hunters wiping out the Indians' food source did. Had the Indians taken decisive action against them, the Indian Wars may have had a different ending.

I believe the major factor in the defeat of the plains Indians was the willingness of the U.S. Army to campaign against them in the winter. Once the Army found the Indians' winter quarters, destroyed their lodges and their stored supply of food, the Indians were helpless.

Pilgrim

R.H. Lee
September 23, 2004, 12:12 PM
Even a suspicion that the victim may be armed requires using several soldiers or police per prisoner, as anything else would cost dead soldiers. So the amount of resources to take on even a few thousand people would be pretty extreme and couldn't be done quickly or quietly. And this brings up another serious problem for the aggressors, namely the economic component. It would be nigh impossible to round up/exterminate large numbers of people in the U.S. or U.K. (for example) without bringing the wheels of business and industry to a complete halt. Without basic goods and services delivered (especially to large urban areas), the oppressors would soon have more chaos than they could manage.

Oleg Volk
September 23, 2004, 12:25 PM
My guess is that a grandma with a concealed .32 would be as much a threat to the enemy as a guy with an AK...harder to ID as a threat...

Basically, the Germans didn't even have to search their victims most of the time, and a few riflemen would convoy and kill hundred of civilian. At that point, one of two people with pistols could have been a serious monkey-wrench.

BobCat
September 23, 2004, 12:29 PM
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.

If the Japanese who were interned during WWII in this country had been armed, and *thought* they were being taken away to be slaughered, and offered armed resistance - they *would have been* slaughtered. But they would have died on their feet, not in gas chambers.

A lot depends on what group the genocide is directed against. If it is a small, generally despised and distrusted group within a society, I htink the best they can hope for is to take some of their persecuters with them when they go, honorably.

If it is a larger group, or a group that commands the respect / support of the society at large, it seems to me that the prospect of armed resistance might be enough to stay the persecuters' hand and prevent the genocide in the first place.

As I recall, it was Albright who said (wrt Kosevo) something like, 'What's the point of having such a marevlous Military if you can't use it?' - and the answer, of course, is deterrence. Predators - individual thugs or governments - tend to go after those perceived as weak and unlikely to resist.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Purrrs,
BobCat
http://www.bayourifles.org

Fred Fuller
September 23, 2004, 12:30 PM
iapetus,

Take a look at http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/terry/terry2.html . Then check the information on the film _Inncents Betrayed_ at http://www.jpfo.org/ . If you have the equipment to view the film (DVD or VHS) you should get a copy.

The antis often point out the futility of 'one person with a gun standing against an army.' The point is that an armed people are far more numerous than any army that can be deployed against them. Look into the 'Winter War' between Finland and the Russians just before WW2 for an example.

And always, always remember this one:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur – what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! "If. . . if . . . We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." (Note 5, page 13, Vol. 1, The Gulag Archipelago, by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn)

And the ultimate question is, what do you have to lose? If your life is to be taken from you no matter what, is it not better to force those who would steal it to pay a price for it in kind?

Citizens bear arms, slaves do not.

lpl/nc

Pilgrim
September 23, 2004, 12:46 PM
Would the RKBA (and will to use it) have any real use, other than giving you the option of a Heroic Last Stand (rather than dying on you knees from a shot to the back of the head)?

If you wait for the government forces to come for you, you will be picked off one by one until there is no one left.

The instrument of government suppression is more likely to be the local police than the 82nd Airborne as our Democratic Underground defeatists are prone to suggest.

The local police are very vulnerable to guerilla warfare. If you study the history of insurrections and guerilla warfare, the police are targeted more often than the might of regular army troops.

Pilgrim

stevelyn
September 23, 2004, 12:48 PM
Two problems with the American Indian resistence. The first is inter-tribal warfare. Tribes fought as much among themselves as the did with the settler/army. Sencond was lack of maneuver warfare. When the indian went into battle they fought as a group of individuals going after targets of oportunity rather than a planned objective.
The Battle at Little Bighorn showed how using maneuver warfare and tactics can defeat a professional army. Of course Custer made the mistake of underestimating his opponent and traveling without Gatling gun and artillery support (Benteeeeen..........bring guns, lotsa guuuuunns.......).

The jews in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising were already behind the curve for real effective resistence. They were already corraled into a place they couldn't get out of and had been completely disarmed prior to being placed there. However inspite of those odds they did show real fighting spirit before being decisively crushed by the nazis. Had the Ghetto resistors been able to be supplied from the outside, they may have been able to break out and escape.

I think most folks are forgetting recent history. In our lifetime we watched as the most oppressive communist governments in the world collapsed. These governments collapsed due in part to the people being fed up. They managed this with little armed resistance. Imagine how easy it would have been had these people been armed.

We have also seen the effects of disarming one side in an effort to stop the fighting or to facilitate a genocide. Look at Rwanda and Bosnia.
I don't know about anyone else, but noble or not I would rather die fighting than by execution. Slavery and just surviving are not acceptable either.

444
September 23, 2004, 12:56 PM
There are countless stories of a realatively small, poorly armed and poorly trained group keeping an invading army at bay. Let's see: present day Iraq, USSR vs. Afganistan, USA vs. Vietnam just to name a few. You don't have to win a traditional military victory to come out on top of this, you just have to make it so miserable and costly that they lose their will to fight. You don't meet the enemy toe to toe, you hit and run, you harrass. And example might be sniping: remember that the value of sniping usually isn't the fact that one man was killed, it is the psychological part of them knowing that it is never safe to go outside. At anytime you could be shot by an unseen enemy. Look at the winging of hands by the American people and the American press right now over Iraq. We have lost something over 1000 men KIA in what ? A year or two ? Now imagine if it was not our soldiers in a far away land, but it was right here and the occasional political hack, the occasional LEO, the occasional new media quisling met an untimely death. How long would it go on before they said, the hell with it. You arn't going to win in a head to head batlle. You just make it so miserable that the enemy loses his will to fight.

mack69
September 23, 2004, 01:00 PM
WT asked in an earlier post "What is Chicago doing to prepare for a nuke attack?"

I'll tell you what chicago is doing to prepare....nothing....King Dick and his village idiot Rod are only interested in a state wide AWB.....And me being only 30+ miles away means I'll be lucky to be vaporized. But seeing as immediate erradication only happens up to 10 miles out, I'll most likely just get a somewhat damaged home, bad burns or rad poisioning...

jefnvk
September 23, 2004, 01:12 PM
Ironically, those who hide behind the First Amendment, and attack us who stand by the Second, are in for a big surprise when the Second is invalidated, because the First will be right after it, and there will be some extremely pissed unarmed media types being led to the showers...

Don't forget the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on. When you mess with one, it won;t be long before they all crumble.

SADshooter
September 23, 2004, 01:19 PM
Fudgie:

First, I'm a fat, lazy sissy accustomed to modern comforts, who doesn't blame anyone else for the same condition. That said, you're right, of course, except for one minor and one critical distinction. I will argue that the 20th Century raised the bar. Your French example describes occupation, not genocide. Occupation in Europe up to that time wasn't particularly rare, followed by a treaty and return to BAU. I don't think those French men and women could conceive of mass exterminations on the Nazi scale. The recent Armenian example or pogroms in eastern Europe weren't, I don't believe, very widely publicized.

Fast forward, and we have the Stalin's purges, the Holocaust, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, and all the others I omitted. And all the complacent people you describe. Plus 9/11, Madrid, Beslan, etc. So, compliance seemed like a much safer alternative then than it does now.

When will the water boil the frog? I don't know. And no, the image of me shaking, cold, wet, and hungry in a bombed out building, trying to make myself as small as possible isn't as appealing as sitting here at my desk, or home with wife, television, and beer. But they both sound better than shuffling on my new paper shoes into that cattle car.

TallPine
September 23, 2004, 01:20 PM
The American Indians, for the most part, found it impossible to conceive of a unified force against them. They expected to win one battle and then go home and live in peace. Their own culture was just so de-centralized that they could not imagine that all the various army forces were under one command: the US Govt.

For instance, the Nez Perce believed that once they had won a battle in Idaho and escaped into Montana, that they could live in peace among the settlers and the Army there. Of course, they were wrong and nearly got wiped out at Big Hole for their complacency.

If the tribes had united in a concerted and prolonged campaign against the US, then history might have been written very differently.


As for me, I would just as soon die on my feet as to die on my knees.
None of us get out of this world alive, anyway.

Justin
September 23, 2004, 01:29 PM
One of the main things that struck me about the Holocaust was how well the Germans were at keeping the whole thing secret. No one seemed to know what would happen after being herded onto a train car, so they assumed that they wouldn't be hurt because they had no actual proof of their oppressors' murderous intentions.

To my mind, this speaks to accurate intel info being probably just as important as being armed and willing. Had the info in the form of photographs, film, and written firsthand accounts gotten out to the Jews in the first few months or year of Hitler's regime, it's likely that many more would have actively resisted.

In this regard, I think having still and video cameras is practically as important as having a rifle. I contend that turning cameras on big brother and shining the light of truth on acts of oppression can, in and of itself, have a huge effect.

Though, to be completely honest, I don't know of any situation where this has happened, or the concept even studied.

NMshooter
September 23, 2004, 01:33 PM
When your butt is puckered up so much you couldn't pull out a needle with a tractor, has been for weeks, and you still have to go out and about doing your job well identified for those who don't like you, you begin to realise the effectiveness of guerilla warfare...

Guys like that poster simply do not understand much of anything, nor do they ever wish to.

wmenorr67
September 23, 2004, 02:09 PM
The reason that Japan did not invade the US during WWII is because of the armed populace and they were afraid of getting their collective butts kicked.

Ktulu
September 23, 2004, 02:17 PM
There are people, probably more than one realizes, that don't believe ANYTHING is worth dying over---any cause or principle, that is.

How sad and wretched such creatures are... and how dangerous to free and honorable people. The test of a man is not how he acts when all is well and everyone is looking. The true test is how he acts when he has little to lose and no one is looking.

Fudgie Ghost
September 23, 2004, 02:18 PM
Sadshooter: You're right---I was really not thinking of genocide, as you noted, but defeat and occupation.

We all have to die sometime, and if you know the bastards are going to kill you anyway, well that would seem to make coming to a decision to strike a blow a bit easier. Even so, it's hard to predict what anybody would do in a particular situation, especially an extremely adverse one.

Look at the people being captured and horribly killed in Iraq. Some people might say--"Hey they should have fought like crazy when they were attacked. . " (You could make the case that those insurgensts are committing genoicde on Westeners/Coalition Forces/Non-Muslims)

Like I said, everyone likes to think of what they'd do, but until YOUR door is busted down at 3 am, and hooded guys with AK's are screaming at you. . . you just don't know until it happens to you. Not everyone's Rambo.

Sam Adams
September 23, 2004, 02:36 PM
How well can armed civilians resist a tyranny?

Ask the Bielski brothers, who organized a partisan group:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0066210747/qid=1095960214/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5799053-9340955

or ask the Swiss, who have had a true militia system for hundreds of years and were able to mobilize 850,000 (out of a population of 4.3 million), the vast majority of whom were essentially civilians with guns:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0306813254/qid=1095960378/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-5799053-9340955

R.H. Lee
September 23, 2004, 02:37 PM
Like I said, everyone likes to think of what they'd do, but until YOUR door is busted down at 3 am, and hooded guys with AK's are screaming at you. . . you just don't know until it happens to you. Not everyone's Rambo.
Actually for me fear is a greater motivator than anger. I'm much more likely to employ deadly force if I'm scared ?????l3$$ than if I'm angry.

Travis McGee
September 23, 2004, 03:11 PM
You have to distinguish between two categories of genocide.

One case is where an enemy occupying army sweeps into your country, say, Poland in 1939. In this case, the army stays on basically secure bases, and does not bring along its families etc. It's very hard to resist genocide by such an army as the Nazis or Japanese in WW2 etc, even if you are fairly well armed. Even so, you will make the occupying army pay dearly for their genocide, and this may in time and a number of countries wear them down until they are defeated overall. (Think of the total number of partisan attacks against the Germans in Greece, Yugoslavia, Russia etc. It adds up to serious military significance.)

The other case is self-genocide, where a govt turns tyrant and tries to murder a part of its own population. This is where an armed population is crucial, and even may be the paramount factor. In this case, the "occupying army" (including cops, bureaucrats, politicians etc) lives among the population, with its families etc. They must travel down public roads to get to work etc. The armed population can really put the hurt on such a government turned tyrant, even to the point where it's too painful to continue a tyrannical policy.

The tyrants and junior tyrants want to live freely, and not hide in bunkers on closed bases. They want to play golf and go fishing.

They don't want to be picked off one by one by patriotic members of the "Ten Million Deer Rifle Army."

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/bookcover.jpg

CGofMP
September 23, 2004, 03:59 PM
There are so many logical fallacies that are inherent in your opponent's statements that it is hard to deal with them on an intellectual basis. Their mindset is one of defeatism and therefore no argument will be able to pierce their self fulfilling prophecy.

Having said that I will preach to the chior.

One MAJOR flaw in their argument is that they see the average American with his 12 guage duck gun against a government with 'Armored cars and tanks and jeeps and rigs of every size'. Not to mention satellites, nukes, and whatnot.

Problem is that they fail to se that this would be an INTERNAL struggle. This means that the rebels would be 'infiltrated' throughout our entire society, government, military, and infrastructure. This would give the rebels access to either destroy or steal a significant amount of the superior forces goods or support structure.

Think about it.

If our government decided one day that anyone with a small collection of National Geographic Magazines was now a criminal and needed to be locked up or killed, and began a program of doing so... what would happen? Throughout our society there are people who are silly enough to keep back issues of NationalG... or they have friends or family who have National Geographic. Nobody knows who they are for sure and nobody knows who might support NationalG subversives.

Think of all the people you personally know and then think of what just one out of 10 could do at their job to make the biggest mess possible for the government. Truck drivers, power plant operations staff, water treatment plant workers, cleaning ladies in government buildings, the list is as endless as is the imagination. Additionally, there are people IN government who own National Geographic, there are kids in the military who do not want grandpa shot because he owns NG. etc etc. See where I am going? Even a tiny portion of the people in government and / or with access to dangerous or critical items to our infrastructure could make one hell of a mess... and if done right nobody would suspect them leaving open the possibility for them to continue to sabotage or otherwise screw up the works.

Then there is the weapons fallacy...

Your opponent also thinks Mr. Duck hunter will always be armed with that piddly little shotgun. Ever heard the quote "In combat a handgun is good only good for fighting your way to a rifle."? The same is true for Elmer Fudd and his duck gun. Imagine that he had some number 2 buck and decided he wanted that M16 on the back of the local paroling soldier.... Then with his bloody but working M16 maybe he wants that M60 machinegun in the back of a truck someplace... Maybe a few of his buddies who had similar ideas were able to get grenades and a few other things.. maybe some uniforms... getting control of some light artty or a truckload of god knows what might happen etc etc etc.

In short taking better weapons using the little pea shooter is a lot more possible than if you had nothing at all to begin with.

Your opponent also fails to realize also that many of us ARE or WERE the government. We know how it works because we are or were it. That means that ex-military men will know how things are done, what the weaknesses are in a convoy or at the local guard armory etc etc. This puts us in a far superior position to the Vietnamese and the Afghans were against the US and USSR respectively in that we have a million 'turncoats' on our side who used to be part of the enemy. They are trained and have an understanding far beyond the normal guerilla did.

Speaking of training.... How many benchresters, IDPA folks, and other honed and disciplined shooters are out there? Many will not have the tactical or combat knowledge but they damned well will have enough knowledge of HOW to shoot and make hits that with even a slight amount of tutoring from ex-green beret/sf types they could mount at least a semi-effective harassment campaign. Hell even deer hunters know a bit about cammo and lying in wait. Not every dorko with a deer rifle that can make hits at 500 yards will be a sniper, but god knows there will be a lot more long range casualties for support troops than there would be in most other areas of the world.

The government of Japan declined to invade the US mainland because in the words of one of their people, "there is a rifle behind every blade of grass". They were NOT referring to our large military (it was a joke at the beginning of hostilities). No they were referring to Ma and Pa Kettle and their privately owned arms. Even the Empire of Japan realized that trying to take over a well armed populace was going to be an expensive proposition.

Are small arms a panacea against tyranny? No. Certainly not. They really are just a deterrent - but a darned significant one. Small arms do NOT alone have the power to overcome the US military but they do make it harder for tyrants and genocidally bent groups in that it makes it so costly in terms of lives and resources that the return is not worth the tyranny. (Why bother being a tyrant when you already peaceably tax us out of 50 percent of our money anyhow?)

Think about how the police or military go up against someone with a weapon.. even if its just to kill him (military). It requires more than one person to make sure the outcome does not result in dead cops or soldiers. Costly. Multiply that by 100k or a million and you'd have quite a project taking on the US population.

Back to reality...

Having said all this I DESPISE the idea of such actions. I LOATHE the thought of Americans attempting to subjugate other Americans and the bloodshed of inter-American bloodshed. ALL that we have built over 200 years will be in jeopardy and likely be destroyed by such an action. The hope is that those who would be tyrants understand this as well and do not want their families to starve either.

This is one reason that we really ALL must be active politically not just for our 2nd ammend rights but indeed for all of them. When we see others politically oppressed we need to change the policies in a peaceful way before the government repressions build on themselves enough to make tyranny thinkable.

Charles

Majic
September 23, 2004, 04:17 PM
One thing people ignore in the battle against the native Americans is that the government reconized the fact that they wer losing to the enemy. They wipe out a village, but also lost many patrols in looking for them. By the native Americans living spread out like they did, a massive organized military strike just doesn't work. The decision to wipe out the buffalo, which provided food, clothing, shelter, and tools, was the decisive factor in winning the war. Destroy any military's supply line and you will defeat them.

GEM
September 23, 2004, 04:21 PM
I've just read a major book on the theory of genocide. The author from MIT makes the point that genocides don't start when:

1. The population at risk can resist reasonably well
2. They can flee or the oppressor can easily deport them.

Thus, an armed population is not at risk for a Holocaust, Armenian, Rwanda style event.

Also, there are some terrible historical misconceptions floating around in the RBKA world.

The Japanese had zero plans ever to invade the USA. They were not deterred by our armed populace as they weren't interested. The quote about guns behind blades of grass wasn't ever part of their planning. I've read some scholarly historical books on their plans and invasion was never one of them.

The Swiss - the Swiss avoided Nazi invasion by two major factors before their militia:

1. They cooperated fairly substantially with the Nazis. Maybe they were stuck but they did. There was never any need to invade.

2. They made it clear that they would destroy crucial Alpine tunnels if invaded. That would have been more damaging to the war effort. Why invade when they gave the Axis access to those transportation resources?

They had no significant air force or armor. They planned to withdraw to an Alpine redoubt. They had a problem with Nazi sympathizers in their own military structure that would have gone Quisling on them.

Their resistance could have been overcome. The first two factors were more important than the militia according to military scholarship.

c_yeager
September 23, 2004, 04:36 PM
When it comes to civilian resistance the idea isnt so much to "defeat" the enemy so much as to make the endevour too costly to be worth their while.

The fact is that in the modern world the technology gap between civilians and the military has become pretty extreme (much more so than in 1776) and no civilian militia is going to stand for long against a well equipped and supported army. However with the right organization the civilian militia can make themselves into enough of a nuisance that the enemy ends up paying too much in the form of men, money, and materials to be worth the objective.

Take the Holocaust for example. Hitler had a war looming on the horizon and needed everything that could be put into it in order to prevent defeat. Exterminating the Jews was certainly important to him but, in the face of losing his entire nation it becomes a secondary concern. Had the Jews put up a significant fight the effort to exterminate them could well have required enough resources to threaten the war effort. WHich would have either shortened the war (and shortened the length of the Holocaust) or made the Germans give up on the idea untill after the war. Either way the Jews wouldnt have had a decisive victory per se but, they would have been better off in the end had they put up more of a fight.

OF
September 23, 2004, 04:42 PM
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe

OF
September 23, 2004, 04:44 PM
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe

OF
September 23, 2004, 04:45 PM
No one has mentioned that, as long as the Government is seen to govern by the consent of the (armed) people, armed revolt is unlikely to become necessary.Never forget this. It is only because you are armed that you, ultimately, cannot be ignored. An armed populations reaction to the decrees of the ruling elites must always be considered.

As the political noose tightens, the armed citizenry must be taken more and more seriously. An armed population is the perfect political deterrent to tyranny and staves off violence. The founding fathers understood this. Those with new-found freedom tend to understand it much more vividly than those who are generations from revolution and their prior liberation.

The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

- Gabe

boofus
September 23, 2004, 04:48 PM
Winning the war isn't the point. The point is that you and your family do not have to go quietly to the gas chamber. You do not have to die on your knees begging some government overlord for mercy that you won't get.

If you have to explain that concept to someone they are a lost cause... i.e. blissninny liberal helpless sheeple and their opinions are utterly irrelevant in the discussion of liberty.

R.H. Lee
September 23, 2004, 04:53 PM
The 2nd Amendment renders talk of boots-on-the-ground battle-effectiveness almost unnecessary. Keep your guns and don't let the gov't ever forget that you have them and will ultimately fight to keep them, and you will never have to fight to keep them outside of the political system.

I just want to repeat that and say AMEN. Regardless of any goofy law(s) passed by any transitory government body-KEEP YOUR GUNS.

reagansquad
September 23, 2004, 05:12 PM
Veitcong (Veitnam War)
Iraqi insurgency (Iraq War 2)
La Resistance (WW2 France)
Everyone in Afganistan (War on Terrorism, USSR's invasion)
US militia forces (Revolution, 1812, Civil war)
Contras (several south and central american wars)
Russian Partisans (WW2, Eastern front)
The zapatistas (Right now in southern Mexico)
Most Sierra Lion forces (Sierra Lion civil war)
Sparta's arming of the Helots (Persian War)
Sparta's women and old men (after first Spartain defeat in 500 years)

I mean... if you really thought about this, you could make a list a mile long. There has been successful armed resistance by irregular forces thousands of times in world history... Though it seems that unsuccessful is far more common... ;-)

Bartholomew Roberts
September 23, 2004, 05:17 PM
This essay is a must read on the subject of RKBA and genocide:

http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html

nwmanitou
September 23, 2004, 05:52 PM
Jewish Partisans (http://www.jewishpartisans.org)

I saw a show on PBS a year or so ago late one night about the Jewish Partisans during WWII. I think the documentary was called "Resistance: Untold Stories Of Jewish Partisans" They were something else. The one point that stood out to me from the whole show was the reason the majority of the Jews didn't fight back. They interviewed one of the female partisans. She stated, in the interview, that there were two main reasons the Jews didn't resist in mass: first, the crushing despair brought on by the fact that they had no guns to fight the Nazis with, and second, the hope that the Americans would come and rescue them soon. They went so far as to harshy discourage the younger Jews from joining the partisans for fear of Nazi reprisals (Sounds kindof like not making the Rapist mad so he won't hurt you more while waiting for the cops to arrive and save you) Guns were so prized that unarmed (I'm sure they had clubs, knives, etc..) partizans would ambush Small German partols or sentries just to get their guns.

One old Partisan described the feeling he had when He finally had a gun to attack the Nazi's with. (paraphrasing) "I wish I could write on all the bullets- this bullet came from a Jew, you were killed by a Jew. No longer was I an animal being chased, I was a man, I could fight back."

There were something like 30,000 Jewish Partisans living in subteranean shelters deep in the woods. They rescued thousands of other Jews, and engaged in serious guerrilla warfar and sabotage on the Nazis.

White Horseradish
September 23, 2004, 06:14 PM
I think there is one other thing that wasn't mentioned specifically. Any army is only as good as its supply lines.

During WWII the sabotage of various transportation by partisans was probably more harmful to the German army than the direct confrontations. It only takes a guy and a wrench to derail a train... Of course, an armed lookout makes the guy with the wrench more successful. Forget the tanks. It's the supply trucks and gas tankers that make the best targets.

Anybody know how well a deer rifle does against a truck tire?:neener:

Mad Man
September 23, 2004, 07:21 PM
Justin September 23rd, 2004 04:29 PM

In this regard, I think having still and video cameras is practically as important as having a rifle. I contend that turning cameras on big brother and shining the light of truth on acts of oppression can, in and of itself, have a huge effect.

Though, to be completely honest, I don't know of any situation where this has happened, or the concept even studied.



David Brin (http://davidbrin.com/) wrote about that idea in 1998 called The Transparent Society. (http://davidbrin.com/privacyarticles.html)

rl2669
September 23, 2004, 08:06 PM
In this regard, I think having still and video cameras is practically as important as having a rifle. I contend that turning cameras on big brother and shining the light of truth on acts of oppression can, in and of itself, have a huge effect.

Though, to be completely honest, I don't know of any situation where this has happened, or the concept even studied.


How about the person who filmed Rodney King being beat up? Or the Tiananmen Square fiasco? Or going back in history a bit more, Kent State?

Having cameras present didn't stop the aggression the way a rifle might have, but it sure made an impression on governments that this is not the way to behave.

Rob

rl2669
September 23, 2004, 08:08 PM
In this regard, I think having still and video cameras is practically as important as having a rifle. I contend that turning cameras on big brother and shining the light of truth on acts of oppression can, in and of itself, have a huge effect.

Though, to be completely honest, I don't know of any situation where this has happened, or the concept even studied.


How about the person who filmed Rodney King being beat up? Or the Tiananmen Square fiasco? Or going back in history a bit more, Kent State?

Having cameras present didn't stop the aggression the way a rifle might have, but it sure made an impression on governments that this is not the way to behave. Sort of a "short term" versus "long term" effect.

As much as we shooters hate to admit it, the pen is truly mightier than the sword, at least in the long run...

Rob

Daemon688
September 23, 2004, 08:40 PM
Doesn't matter how many casualties you take, it's who has the will to fight. Viet Cong no doubt took more casualties than the US did, but it was us who lost the taste for battle.

With so many freedom loving Americans, if it got to the point where we did have to fight our own government I think we would win.

If we didn't, then it is better to die a free, fighting man then die cowering from the government.

WEPS
September 23, 2004, 09:00 PM
if a goverment wants to participate in genocide bad enough they will, but a well armed civilian population might make them question there willingness to participate in such a campaign. still, you could arm 20,000,000 people and they would still lose to a well trained professional army. without good logistics, training, leadership and a plentifull supply of ammo they would eventually lose but not before taking a tremendous toll and the armed forces.

WEPS
September 23, 2004, 09:13 PM
vietnam, korea, iraq these are not fair comparisons. there were way too many restrictions in these operations. if america really wanted to bring these countries to their knees we could and rather quickly. just look what germany did to france and poland. americans fight fair rebels don't, i can't blame these guys though. if korean soldiers were camped out down my street i'd lob a rocket towards them. people gota do what poeple gota do. i hate terrorist just as much as anybody, but ill take my hat off to some of those iraqies who have the balls to stick up for themsleves in the face of almost certain death. that doesn't mean i won't kill one though

TheLastBoyScout
September 23, 2004, 09:31 PM
Its not a question of resistance... Jews were targets because, from Hitler's point of view, they were cheap targets. The question is more one of "Would anyone consider genocide against an armed group, or would it be too expensive, in terms of lives and time?"


Alot of it is psychological for the civilian... If a gov't were to decide, for example, that Scouts needed to die, and its agents came to me, I'd probly be screwed no matter what.... But it would be a small comfort to take a few of them with me.

Ky Larry
September 23, 2004, 09:40 PM
It would come down to who had the most determination. The Nazi's in Poland and Russia had very little to fear from the Jews in the ghetto's. They knew the Jews were unarmed and helpless. Would the Nazi's have been as willing to kick in a door if they knew someone with a shotgun or rifle was waiting on the other side of that door? The Nazi's would probably
still have killed millions, but they would have paid a far higher price.

JohnKSa
September 23, 2004, 10:52 PM
Very effectively if it decided to at the right time.

The right time is BEFORE it is disarmed.

13A
September 24, 2004, 12:45 AM
One topic that seldom comes up in these types of discussions is the amount of ammunition the typical American family has on hand.

I have a friend who owns a British Enfield but NO rounds. I keep telling him all he has is a club. My father has 4 guns but less than 100 rounds of ammo.

:(

WEPS
September 24, 2004, 01:20 AM
well how much ammo should you keep on hand? i normaly have no less than 300 rounds of practice ammo per gun and about 40 rounds for per gun for defence.

The_Antibubba
September 24, 2004, 04:38 AM
As a Jew, and as a former liberal, it took me a while to understand the necessity of armed resistance. Why more American Jews don't instinctly get the lessons of The Holocaust, I don't know. We're essentially a peaceful people, but we're not stupid.

But that brings us to Israel, which nobody has yet mentioned. As Americans, we talk about the need to resist tyranny and genocide; Israelis have been LIVING IT for almost 60 years. Israel wants nothing more than to live in peace with it's neighbors. But when the Arabs attack, Israel decimates them. When Palestinians blow up children, Israel fires missiles at their leaders and razes their homes. It is telling that the only war the Israelis "lost" was in the occupation of Southern Lebanon; it seems that occupation-style military actions don't succeed, no matter who you are.

I'm proud to be a Jew, and a lot of that pride comes from the accomplishments of the Jewish State to resist those who would destroy us. To not resist would mean the victims of the Holocaust died in vain. For me to not resist tyranny would be just as bad.


****
As for ammo, the goal is to have at least 1,000 rounds for each type of weapon, minimum, and at least 1,000 for each weapon-except for .22, which is so easy to buy and store, I'm trying to go for 5,000. (I really have to get me a .22 firearm one of these days! :o )

Oleg Volk
September 24, 2004, 04:49 AM
well how much ammo should you keep on hand?

Don't know how much I have, but I'd estimate .223 at about 2000 loaded up in magazines and another 1200 boxed. 308 about 240 in magazines and 2500-2700 boxed. 303 maybe 1500-1600. 30-06 about 1600. 7.62x54 around 1800. 8mm roughly 1200. 9x19 about 2000. 40SW maybe 500-600. 45ACP same. Around 200-250 each 38, 357, 10mm, 32acp. 900-1000 of .22, ought to remedy that and all the pistol calibers. Perhaps 300 20ga shells, wih a lot of slug and buck. I even keep a few for the calibers I don't have (12ga, 7.62x39). I'd think that ammo is cheaper to buy in bulk, esp. when milsurp is available. I shoot a lot less centerfire and more .22LR, but some classes I've taken required 900 rounds of pistol or rifle ammo in a weekend. In any case, I'd get very nervious if I had less than 500 rounds for the primary handgun or less than 1000 for the primary rifle. Since I have more than one gun in most of the calibers, my stash is pretty minimal right now. Same goes for magazines, I'd prefer at least twelve mags per primary rifle and five per handgun.

bukijin
September 24, 2004, 10:35 AM
I think that any centrefire rifle with about 500 rounds would be a good start. Who knows what will happen in the future ?

Sawdust
September 24, 2004, 10:56 AM
Don't know how much I have, but I'd estimate .223 at about 2000 loaded up in magazines and another 1200 boxed. 308 about 240 in magazines and 2500-2700 boxed. 303 maybe 1500-1600. 30-06 about 1600. 7.62x54 around 1800. 8mm roughly 1200. 9x19 about 2000. 40SW maybe 500-600. 45ACP same. Around 200-250 each 38, 357, 10mm, 32acp. 900-1000 of .22, ought to remedy that and all the pistol calibers. Perhaps 300 20ga shells, wih a lot of slug and buck. I even keep a few for the calibers I don't have (12ga, 7.62x39). I'd think that ammo is cheaper to buy in bulk, esp. when milsurp is available. I shoot a lot less centerfire and more .22LR, but some classes I've taken required 900 rounds of pistol or rifle ammo in a weekend. In any case, I'd get very nervious if I had less than 500 rounds for the primary handgun or less than 1000 for the primary rifle. Since I have more than one gun in most of the calibers, my stash is pretty minimal right now. Same goes for magazines, I'd prefer at least twelve mags per primary rifle and five per handgun.

Somebody stop that man! He has an arsenal :what: !!

Sawdust :D

Mad Man
September 24, 2004, 12:09 PM
still, you could arm 20,000,000 people and they would still lose to a well trained professional army. without good logistics, training, leadership and a plentifull supply of ammo they would eventually lose but not before taking a tremendous toll and the armed forces.



http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/dark-networks-vladis-krebs-has-case.html



Thursday, September 23, 2004
Dark Networks

Vladis Krebs has a case study page (http://www.orgnet.com/hijackers.html) examining how mapping social networks and understanding their properties can be used to take down of terrorist networks. Network analysis was used to take down Saddam Hussein. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3075-2003Dec15?language=printer) has some of the details.


The Army general whose forces captured Saddam Hussein said yesterday that he realized as far back as July that the key lay in figuring out the former Iraqi president's clan and family support structures in and around Hussein's home city of Tikrit.

Following a strategy similar to that pioneered by New York City police in the 1990s, who cracked down on "squeegee men" only to discover they knew about far more serious criminals, Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno said his analysts and commanders spent the summer building "link diagrams," graphics showing everyone related to Hussein by blood or tribe.

While U.S. forces up to then had been preoccupied with finding "high value targets" from the Bush administration's list of the top 55 most-wanted Iraqis, Odierno said those family diagrams led his forces to lower-level, but nonetheless highly trusted, relatives and clan members harboring Hussein and helping him move around the countryside.


And the rest as they say, is history. John Robb (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/04/mapping_terrori.html) took at look at the September 11 network and analyzed its characteristics. The Mohammed Atta network had evolved under Darwinian pressure until it reached the form best suited for its purpose: to conduct strategic attacks against the United States of America. Robb concludes that a cell of 70 persons will answer to the purpose, yet be sparse enough to allow its members to remain in relative isolation. For example, no one member of Atta's cell knew more than five others. Moreover, the average distance between any two members was more than four persons. Crucially, but not surprisingly, this disconnected network of plotters maintained coherence by relying on a support infrastructure -- probably communications posts, safe houses, couriers -- to keep themselves from unraveling. Because security comes at a price in performance and flexibility, Robb arrives at an astounding conjecture (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/03/what_is_the_opt.html): you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor.



Distributed, dynamic terrorist networks cannot scale like hierarchical networks. The same network design that makes them resiliant against attack puts absolute limits on their size. If so, what are those limits?

A good starting point is to look at limits to group size within peaceful online communities on which we have extensive data -- terrorist networks are essentially geographically dispersed online communities. Chris Allen does a good job analyzing optimal group size with his critique of the Dunbar number.

His analysis (replete with examples) shows that there is a gradual fall-off in effectiveness at 80 members, with an absolute fall-off at 150 members. The initial fall-off occurs, according to Chris, due to an increasing amount of effort spent on "grooming" the group to maintain cohesion. The absolute fall-off at 150 members occurs when grooming fails to stem dissatisfaction and dissension, which causes the group to cleave apart into smaller subgroups (that may remain affiliated).

Al Qaeda may have been able to grow much larger than this when it ran physical training camps in Afghanistan. Physical proximity allowed al Qaeda to operate as a hierarchy along military lines, complete with middle management (or at least a mix of a hierarchy in Afghanistan and a distributed network outside of Afghanistan). Once those camps were broken apart, the factors listed above were likely to have caused the fragmentation we see today (lots of references to this in the news).


His last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly. Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or "holy places" is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes "America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world" inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.



UPDATE: Yes, this is about Al Qaida and terrorism. But it could also be applied to any "resistance" movement in the United States. If some rebellion were to occur within the U.S., where would the outside help come from? The Viet Cong had North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, while the Afghan mujihadeen were supplied with Stinger missiles by the U.S. government.

kevin993
September 24, 2004, 11:18 PM
Don't know how much I have, but I'd estimate .223 at about 2000 loaded up in magazines and another 1200 boxed. 308 about 240 in magazines and 2500-2700 boxed. 303 maybe 1500-1600. 30-06 about 1600. 7.62x54 around 1800. 8mm roughly 1200. 9x19 about 2000. 40SW maybe 500-600. 45ACP same. Around 200-250 each 38, 357, 10mm, 32acp. 900-1000 of .22, ought to remedy that and all the pistol calibers. Perhaps 300 20ga shells, wih a lot of slug and buck. I even keep a few for the calibers I don't have (12ga, 7.62x39). I'd think that ammo is cheaper to buy in bulk, esp. when milsurp is available. I shoot a lot less centerfire and more .22LR, but some classes I've taken required 900 rounds of pistol or rifle ammo in a weekend. In any case, I'd get very nervious if I had less than 500 rounds for the primary handgun or less than 1000 for the primary rifle. Since I have more than one gun in most of the calibers, my stash is pretty minimal right now. Same goes for magazines, I'd prefer at least twelve mags per primary rifle and five per handgun.

:what: Geez man, are you getting ready to start WWIII or what?!?!? :D

R.H. Lee
September 24, 2004, 11:55 PM
Interesting read, Mad Man. Gives an insight into anti terrorism strategy.

MaceWindu
September 25, 2004, 12:06 AM
kevin993 is on my team....:D


Cause das what I'm talk'n bout.....:)

Genocide stops when da hammah drops...


MaceWindu

seeker_two
September 25, 2004, 12:37 AM
Oleg's got the right idea, but sometimes it comes down to how much ammo you can CARRY. That's where the .22's come in handy...

As for military-style weapons, I defer to Sam Elliott in When We Were Soldiers..."There'll be plenty lying around if I need one...." :evil:

carpboy
September 26, 2004, 01:24 AM
lee lapin hit the nail on the head.Accounts of the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 give the an unbeleivable story of an armed and motivated population resisting a larger and better equiped invader.The Finns knew that invasion and occupation by Stalins hordes brought genocide as well.The first stage of the invasion was devastating to the unprepared and lightly armed Finns.The response to the Soviets was so intense that the casualty rate was over 25 to 1 on average and 100 to 1 at times.The Finns had no air power or heavy artillery.The ;argest artillery piece the Finns had was pulled by a horse drawn sleigh.After the first few months of the well organized Finns massacreing the Soviets it became a war of attrition.The Finnish govt appealed the the US for help but to no avail.The Roosevelt admimistration critcized Stalin mildly but did not act.After a few months an armistice was called and the Finnish govt ceded the territory that Stalin wanted(warm water ports to the Baltic)but rest of the nation was safe from Soviet oppression.The treaty signed then gave Finland a gauruntee of secure borders even thru the Continuation War of 1944 when the Nazis crossed thru Finland into Soviet territory then Stalins forces chased the Nazis back to oblivion.The bottom line was that Finland not absorbed into the USSR like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were after 1945.The Finns took the lessons of the Winter War to heart.To this day there is universal conscription.All males must serve in the military at age19.They can be called back to service at any time.All trucks can be called into service of the govt at any time.Gun ownership seems to be a murky issue but the citizens seem to have plenty of rifles. The Finns acheived thru sacrifice and determination what the Swiss acheived thru bluster and canniness.

jeff-10
September 26, 2004, 02:38 AM
Although the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto is one of the more famous or even infamous accounts of a people rising, even if too late, to defend themselves against unpseakable evil, it is not a good example of a "what if" secenario of people resisting tyrany with pesonally owned weapons. The fact is nothing on the face of the earth was going to stop the Nazi army at that point except the endless steppes of Russia or the Atlantic Ocean. They had effectively destroyed the most powerful armies in the world in a matter of months. It took most of the great powers in the world 7 long years to finally defeat the Germans at that point.

A better example are the recent armed conflicts in Kosovo or the Kurds in Iraq. They used small arms to defend themselves and retain somewhat autonomy. Exactly the same thing the Afganistans did to the Russians for years and the Chechnyans are doing now. Or the IRA did for decades. Sure the US military is powerful and seems unstoppable. But if they same people who are growing there food and making there weapons attempted to resist them, then it would essentially be a guerilla war fought with small arms. There would be no front lines and no bases to fly safely from.

Otherguy Overby
September 26, 2004, 01:45 PM
If terrorist, finacial disaster or something else occurs, you really need a "lifetime" supply of ammunition. It's like insurance. You'll probably never need it, but if you do...

If any of the above, or a subset of such should happen, does anyone think it would be possible, after the fact, to aquire any significant amount of ammuntion? In the caliber(s) you need?

If you only had a small amount of ammunition, what would you think about giving/selling some to a neighbor?

Don't forget that in a time of true need, essential commodities are worth much more than paper money.

goon
September 26, 2004, 03:26 PM
The will to fight is the key. A man with a hatchet, knife, or even just a chair leg can get a gun. A man who is willing to fight superior odds with only a knife will cause you terrible headaches with a gun.
Anyone who belittles what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto is a moron. Those people dug in with few weapons and fought a vastly superior force, and they held longer than anyone could have possibly imagined. Yes, they were wiped out, but they were not defeated. You can't defeat people like that, only kill them. Their will to fight is what made them what they were.
Now, take a look at the US under a similar circumstance. We have something like 80 million+ gunowners and over 200 million guns. IIRC, there was a study awhile back saying that we have enough guns in this country to arm 80% of our population with something.
I seriouly doubt success against a guerilla army of even only 10% of those gunowners. Imagine 8 million men who attack your forces every time you send them out. Even if you send 100 men to round people up, it takes a relatively small number of guerillas to tie them up and keep them from accomplishing their objective. A dozen men, all dressed like civilians, all moving and shooting you one at a time. Even with air support, who do you bomb? We all look alike. Even if they directly attack civilians with the intent of accidentally getting you too, all they do is add more supporters to your resistance.
An armed population is a very effective deterrent.
And anyone who thinks it couldn't happen here has their head in the sand. If you had walked up to a Jewish man in 1929 and told him that in a few years he and his family would be rounded up and slaughtered wholesale, he would have called you a nut.
There is a book written by haulocaust survivor called "Night" (Elie Wiesel, I think). In this book, he describes someone warning his village of what is about to happen to them, but no one believes it. At least not until it is too late.

The sheeple can think what they want, but I will be armed.
Even a single shot .22 will get you a better weapon if you should need it.
As for my collection, I have some good weapons and as much ammo as I can afford for them.

JHill
September 26, 2004, 04:02 PM
You wanna debate abortion, go do it somewhere else.

:scrutiny:

entropy
September 26, 2004, 05:31 PM
"If any of the above, or a subset of such should happen, does anyone think it would be possible, after the fact, to aquire any significant amount of ammuntion? In the caliber(s) you need?"

Simple Solution Otherguy: Use the same weapons as the enemy, then, any ammo/mags you take off the dead, theirs or yours, will be useable.;)

Mad Man
September 26, 2004, 05:50 PM
Anyone who belittles what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto is a moron. Those people dug in with few weapons and fought a vastly superior force, and they held longer than anyone could have possibly imagined. Yes, they were wiped out, but they were not defeated.

It is likely that the Red Army halted its advance on Warsaw, so any future "trouble makers" could be wiped out by the Nazis, saving Stalin the trouble.

If the advance had continued -- and the Communists didn't murder them afterward -- it is likely that many of those people would have lived.

White Horseradish
September 26, 2004, 06:14 PM
JHill, way to bring an irrelevant pet issue into a discussion. Look up the definition of "genocide" sometime.

Mad Man, while I generally do not tend to downplay the capacity for evil of the Soviet government, I highly doubt that the Jews of Warsaw were a consideration at that point.

Mad Man
September 26, 2004, 06:59 PM
300th post!


while I generally do not tend to downplay the capacity for evil of the Soviet government, I highly doubt that the Jews of Warsaw were a consideration at that point.


Jews, probably not.

People who take up arms and put up a fight, thus proving themselves to be potential troublemakers in the future Communist order of things, yes.

another okie
September 26, 2004, 10:26 PM
Mad Man wrote:

"It is likely that the Red Army halted its advance on Warsaw, so any future "trouble makers" could be wiped out by the Nazis, saving Stalin the trouble."

You are confusing the two Warsaw uprisings. The first one, the ghetto uprising by the Jews, occurred long before there were any Soviets anywhere nearby. The second uprising was by the Polish nationalist underground, which had stood by and done little for the Jews. The Polish underground rose up as the Soviets drew near, and the Soviets did in fact stop to allow the Germans time to put it down and kill as many Polish leaders as possible.

Perhaps that episode is a reminder of the truth of the old story about how "they came for the Jews and I did nothing, because I wasn't a Jew... etc." The Poles did almost nothing to help the Jews, and then it was their turn.

Mad Man
September 26, 2004, 11:11 PM
You are confusing the two Warsaw uprisings. The first one, the ghetto uprising by the Jews, occurred long before there were any Soviets anywhere nearby. The second uprising was by the Polish nationalist underground, which had stood by and done little for the Jews. The Polish underground rose up as the Soviets drew near, and the Soviets did in fact stop to allow the Germans time to put it down and kill as many Polish leaders as possible.

D'oh!

You're right. I stand corrected.


The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) started on April 19, 1943 (the eve of Passover), and continued into the middle of May.

The other Warsaw Uprising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising) was from August to October 1944, after the Red Army reached the suburbs. It was only after the Polish Home Army was destroyed that the Soviets "liberatred" the city.

Nando Aqui
September 27, 2004, 06:51 PM
[I did not read every reply, but searched for "independence" and did not find it. Apologies if anyone already made the following point:]

And just who, and armed with what, defeated the British in the War of Independence?

Wasn't it farmers, townspeople, every day workers, and other 'patriots' who used their hunting rifles, put their lives on the line and defeated a much better trained and better armed force?

entropy
September 27, 2004, 07:57 PM
Some used their own weapons, the majority were issued Charvelle muskets bought from France, (or 'liberated' during the French and Indian War) or Brown Besses (again, 'liberated' from the F & I War) .
It must be remembered that the British had other more pressing military matters to attend to around the globe, and the Gererals and Admirals sent to 'put down that bloody rebellion' did so with disdain, as if it were beneath them. Had they devoted their full attention to fighting and winning, we'd be watching the telly in our flat, instead of the tube in our apartment.

Drjones
September 27, 2004, 08:24 PM
Nobody seems to have posted this yet:


http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/hgsave.html


It is long, so I won't post it here, but you do not need to register or anything to view it.......Its a good read....

JoeWang
September 27, 2004, 08:53 PM
The purpose of the Second Amendment is protect ourselves against the standing military.

I do not relish bearing arms against them but that is the sole purpose under the consitution that we are permitted to own guns. Not to hunt, not to protect ourselves. To help protect the other amendments in the bill of rights and our basic constitutional rights.

It is only recently (WWI) that we have maintained a standing army. Not until WWII and beyond has it been of any scope or significance.

I can see a Kerry-led govt. bearing the military down on gun owners. That would be his coup de grace, to put it in his own dialect. He will take away your bolt actions and your end loaders. Just wait.

Drjones
September 27, 2004, 08:57 PM
I can see a Kerry-led govt. bearing the military down on gun owners.


Come on.

I hate kerry as much as the next guy and could not possibly have any less respect for him, but get real.......

:rolleyes:

UnknownSailor
September 27, 2004, 11:16 PM
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet, is that the members of the US Military aren't just unthinking robots. We will not to a man unquestionally obey orders to wage war on American citizens.

We have family to watch out for, live in and among the general population, and read the same newspapers and watch the same newscasts. Trust me, if it ever came to pass, many of us would be right beside you. And we wouldn't come empty handed.

If you enjoyed reading about "How effectivly could an armed population resist genocide?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!