Scary Conversation with professor today

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd suspect that more than a few military folks will "defect."

Plus, look at the numbers...

4,000,000 NRA members, give or take.

Figure 1% of that group are sorta radical - that gives us 40,000 folks.

Figure 1% of those folks are downright scary - That's 400...
 
Over the years the military and government have made great and purposeful strides in weapons technology that the average citizen couldn't begin to compete with.

You mean like the trouble that insurgents in Iraq are having killing US troops, shooting down helicopters and blowing up stuff when ever they want to.

Guerilla wars are very effective for a reason. They don't require a lot of technology - just folks willing to fight and hit and run tactics. Wars are won by will - technology and force are only small parts of it. You can win all the battles and still lose the war. Think about the US Revolution - a bunch of starving and ill equipped militia types took on the most powerful nation on the planet and won. They didn't win militarily (arguable) but because they just wore the British down to the point that they just didn't figure it was worth it any more. Think Russia in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam. Technology? Only one factor and certainly not the most important one.

My thoughts and observations are they have done everything they could, and well done too, I might add, in weaponry development to ensure there will never be another rebellion and if there is one it will be a very short lived blood bath.

BULL - see above. One guy with a rifle picking off individual soldiers at random intervals and random points can wreak havoc on an army's morale. Plus it seems to me that you are assuming that the US Military would whole heartedly go along with any order to slaughter their friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Not gonna happen in my opinion - but - anything is possible.

With what the general public has available any thought of an uprising against the vastness of the government and military and their arsenal of elite and magnificant weapons would be like going to war with pea shooters.

Addressed - see above...

Any skirmishes amongst varied factions of citizens will only happen if the government and military agree with the causes. Otherwise they will step in and put it down like squashing a bug.

If your assumption that a revolt would occur along the lines of armed groups of citizens taking on the military as a group then your contention is correct but doing that would be stupid. Americans are a lot of things but when it comes to fighting most of them aren't stupid. Guerilla tactics would be used. The two most powerful nations on the world were soundly defeated by what were essentially primitive tribesman using guerilla tactics - don't you think that Americans in revolt would be as smart, clever and effective?

While I won't discount any possibility of some foolish group(s) making an attempt at an armed conflict I think doing so would be a futile and fool hearty attempt and any attempts will simply be branded as a form of domestic terrorism and would be quickly dealt with.

Just my thoughts, mind ya.

We are in agreement that any guerilla style uprising would be branded as domestic terrorism - that wouldn't make it any less effective.

All it would take to effect real change would be to start knocking off elected officials and heads of various government bureaocracies to make things change real fast. The UC scenario is not that far fetched. It could happen and happen with a real chance of being successful.

And those are just my thoughts - thankyou for listening. :D
 
FWIW I believe that there will be a popular uprising of some sort within the next 50 years or so. What form it will take is anyone's guess and it might not be over the issues that most here assume.

For example the poor might rise up in anger and start rioting regularly to get more free stuff from the government - politicians love giving stuff away (especially when it's not their stuff) that's how they buy votes. Regular riots that lead to the destruction of property owned by the middle and upper classes might result in class warfare - how that would be resolved is anyone's guess (I actually see this as the most likely version of a popular revolt).

Another possibility is that a number of like minded and geographically contiguous states decide to secede. I can see this happening out west.

Other possibilities are something like John Ross postulates in UC or Travis McGee postulates in EF&D.

The least likely possibliity is that a nationwide organized resistance is somehow put together and the US government is overthrown and replaced.

The possibilities are endless - it's gonna happen - the how's and the when's are the question not the if.
 
Think about the DC "sniper" shootings. A couple nut jobs with an underpowered rifle virtually held an area hostage.

Now imagine the same scenario with tens of thousands of highly trained (ex-mil or competitive shooters) people with an understanding of tactics and accurate and powerful rifles. Imagine that instead of randomly killing anyone, they randomly killed members of the opposing force. Let's say this opposing force is LEO's of all levels and some military components, along with their political masters. Every time any of these people stepped out of their home they would know that there are a number of people who have dedicated their lives to killing them. They would never know when a single shot would ring out from hundreds of yards away. How long would their resolve hold?
 
All that superior technology & firepower is useless against an enemy who looks like any other citizen until they pull out a pistol or grenade. That's the technique that the Ulsters & IRA used against each other & the British troops to good effect. The days of noble armies & stand-up fights (i.e. American Civil War c. 1861) are over. And the AC-130's, Apaches, & B-2 bombers are useless unless you're willing to bomb neighborhoods (and THAT will turn more people against the government using the "superior technology").

Guerilla wars are very effective for a reason. They don't require a lot of technology - just folks willing to fight and hit and run tactics. Wars are won by will - technology and force are only small parts of it.

Very true...
 
Werewolf, you raise some interesting points to ponder.


Can I assume, by some of your opinions, you think the Iraqi insurgents have a chance of winning in Iraq? I don't if the US and other allied forces ever decide enough is enough and throw all diplomacy out the window.

Take Mogadish, for example.

Had the US (weak kneed Clinton administration) gone in with full force the rebels would be dust right now. But they were of no direct threat to the US so it was decided to let the raging dog rage on (not that I necessarily agree with the philosophy, mind you).

I do think guerilla warfare is effective to a degree and that degree ends when a massive force decides it's time to end it.

One point I eluded to (but wasn't expounded upon) is that if a formidable government, like the US, sees a serious threat they will, without a doubt, put the threat down as quickly as possible rather than risking government, economical and social instability.

Just my thoughts again.
 
Werewolf, you raise some interesting points to ponder.


Can I assume, by some of your opinions, you think the Iraqi insurgents have a chance of winning in Iraq? I don't if the US and other allied forces ever decide enough is enough and throw all diplomacy out the window.

Unless the US wins the hearts and minds of the majority of the Iraqi people yes the insurgents can win. Time is on their side. In the final analysis it will have to be the Iraqi people themselves that put down the insurgency. Guerilla wars only work if the fighters have the support of the folks they are fighting for.

Take Mogadish, for example.

Had the US (weak kneed Clinton administration) gone in with full force the rebels would be dust right now. But they were of no direct threat to the US so it was decided to let the raging dog rage on (not that I necessarily agree with the philosophy, mind you).

Remember what I said about wars being won by will and not by superior force and technology. In Somalia the US did not have the will but even if we had acted as you suggested the end result would have been the same if the people of Somalia had remained against the US. Gurerilla fighters have all the time in the world - look how long the Palestinians have been at it for example - they lose 10 fighters for every Israeli soldier lost and they are still going strong. Organized military units have a great deal of difficulty in fighting guerillas. Organized military units are trained to fight other military units. Even if you wipe out a group of guerillas as long as the people remain opposed to you others will step up to take the place of those lost. A guerilla war doesn't end until the people decide it does.

I do think guerilla warfare is effective to a degree and that degree ends when a massive force decides it's time to end it.

I have to disagree - see above

One point I eluded to (but wasn't expounded upon) is that if a formidable government, like the US, sees a serious threat they will, without a doubt, put the threat down as quickly as possible rather than risking government, economical and social instability.

Just my thoughts again.


__________________
Alan

Crushing desent, rooting out opponents and destroying the enemies of a government are very effective ways of maintaining the power of that government (for awhile anyway). Do you think though that the US government has the will to do what it takes to root out opponents and crush their desent? I don't. The level of brutality required and the affront to what Americans consider their natural rights would only lead to further desent and hasten any revolt.

The US government must walk a very fine line to maintain it's power. It is currently testing the boundaries of that line. IMO it will cross the line in 50 years or less.
 
A while back I was listening to the radio and they mention that somewhere in Tennesse I believe they were going to pass a law that allowed the state to tax income tax returns and the people showed up at the capital and threw rocks through the windows and so forth in protest. Anyone know the specifics?

Anyway, if thats true its not hard to believe something like that could happen. Especially with the government getting larger and taking larger steps into peoples lives.
 
There's a widening urban vs. rural schism happening... Look at folks in states such as Illinois, for instance... A lot of rural folks are getting VERY tired of Chicago running the state... And out west, I can see voting blocks in the Los Angeles area essentially politically turning off the water for the rest of the state, or even the region... Could turn quite gnarsty... Picture this: In XYZ state, the congress, controlled by 51% members from urban areas, ramrods through a "public welfare" bill giving free food to "the poor." At the same time, it places severe price controls upon farming, transport, etc... You'd have a LOT of hacked off folks... I could see supplies to the cities being stopped. Then, when folks start emerging from the cities...
 
How do you defeat a force armed with the most technologically advanced weapons? Easy: you wait for them to get out or off of the equipment. In Yugoslavia, (future) Marshall Tito was asked about how his partisans armed with old rifles would defeat the Germans, who were armed with new tanks. He replied: when a German gets out of his new tank to take a pi$$, my partisans will shoot him with an old rifle.

Guerilla operations are cheap, at least monetarily. An occupying force needs upwards of 10 men for each guerilla, and even then many guerilla attacks are successful. As has been pointed out, the WILL to fight is far more important than the tools one brings to the fight. Just ask the American military governor of Vietnam or the Soviet military governor of Afghanistan, they'll tell you.

As Balog has mentioned, officials of a tyrannical regime in a nation with a high rate of civilians being armed have a lot to fear. Let's look at how many people there would be:

1) There are roughly 80 million gun owners;
2) During the Revolutionary War, roughly 3% of the populace actually took up arms against the Brits;
3) Assuming that we are only 10% as brave, per capita, as our Revolutionary era forefathers, 0.3% of gun owners would actively take part in a revolt (that's only 1 in 333 gun owners).
4) 80 million x 0.003 = 240,000!!

Heck, if only 1/10 of THAT number, less than 1 in 3,000 gun owners, decided that it was open season on tyrants and their servants, you'd have 24,000 rebels. These 24,000 would be the most highly motivated, they'd probably be amongst the most skilled with firearms (many courtesy of Uncle Sucker), they'd probably have extremely high quality weapons (i.e. bolt-action rifles that can reliably hit human torso-sized targets past 500 yards) and, best of all, they'd blend in to the overall population because - guess what - they would be a microcosm of their individual communities.

Does anyone remember what 2 idiots, one of whom was untrained in the use of firearms, did to the DC area with a semi-auto that was never used past about 100 yards? Remember, several thousand police and federal agents - aided by satellite technology, if the reports are true - were looking for them, and they brazenly or carelessly left evidence to be found. Now scale it up: 24,000 (or, lets be real dramatic, 1% of that number or only 240 - which is only 1 in 333,000 gun owners!) people trained as marksmen by the military, armed with accurate, sighted-in bolt action rifles, decide to make trouble if the fed.gov instituted a gun confiscation scheme. And they aren't insane killers with no agenda but murder for murder's sake, but patriots motivated by a love of their nation and their liberties. I'd say that the country would be tied up but good, and that the economic consequences of such an action would dwarf the physical impact of even this very low number of shooters. Imagine, for instance, that a few of them decided to take out trucks bringing food or fuel from the heartland into the coastal cities. Truckers would go on strike, and the big cities would feel the pain of food and fuel riots very soon. To take Balog's scenario a bit further, suppose that some of the 240 gun owners had lost family in raids. It is not too hard to imagine that they'd be motivated by revenge, and decide to take out family members of various government officials. Imagine if some of them were ex-Special Forces types - would YOU want to be a gun-grabbing politician or media type (yeah, they'd be targets, too).

The long and the short of it is that even a small group of highly motivated and skilled people can do enormous damage to a behemouth like the fed.gov, one pinprick at a time. As pointed out in UC, the active IRA is only 100 people located on an island about the size of Arkansas, and it has given the Brits fits for over 30 years, despite the latter's complete dominance in the quantity and quality of men, weaponry and sensing technology. A few hundred or a few thousand rebels might not seem like much against the resources of the fed.gov and the states, but when operating throughout a continent-sized theater where over 250 million guns exist (not to mention lots of high explosives and related equipment), the odds are not so great.
 
dionysusigma: Chemistry, genetics, nanotech, funky energy sources, you name it. Full speed ahead...ahead of the friggin' population curve!!!
 
If you are wondering wether it can be done or not, take a look at WWII Finland. They took on and defeated both the Russians and the Germans with no real outside help. Study the Winter War, as it seemed the Finns were hopelessly overmatched. The Russians invaded with a force of 460,000 men and 2,000 tanks. The Finns fought back with 160,000 men armed with rifles, submachineguns and molotov cocktails. No air support, not much at all in the way of artillery even. The Russians were horribly mauled, losing 400,000 men. The Finns lost something closer to 25,000, and a large number of these were because of the close action required to destroy the Russian tanks with molotov cocktails.

What's the line from the old Kevin Kostner Robin Hood movie? One free man defending his home is worth a dozen hired soldiers?

At any rate, the tech is impressive, but all this talk about how it is impossible to stand against it is a bunch of nonsense. The most formidable capability, the ability to see through the darkness, is easily defeated: fight during the day, stay down at night. It used to be advantageous to operate under the cover of darkness, but that is no longer the case. It's better to meet your foes on equal footing, the Sun shines for us all. Dig a deep hole and hide in it, these devices have their limitations, I have seen them. The cunning rabbit has more than one hole, right? If we have any sense we'll forget about buying the mouseguns. If anybody wants an M-16 or other such at that time there will be plenty laying around on the ground. Instead get a good quality .308/7.62x51 with a scope, or some other rifle that out ranges and hits harder than the dinky gopher round that will be spat out at us by the aluminum and plastic popguns employed by your choice of SHTF/TEOTWAWKI villains. Bombs and artillery are bad news, also one-sided. The Finns held out and weren't as well equiped as we can be. Instead of buying that next fancy rifle or pistol, get yourself some good armor first. It will help. The rest can be accounted for by dispersion and terrain, nobody can afford to drop a bomb or fire a missle to to remove just a squard, maybe less, from the battlefield. Not for long, anyway. Besides, we won't be fight a war of attrition against these guys, that would be stupid. An army marches on its stomach, as they say. Attacks against enemy logistics are superior to attacks against enemy soldiers, at least until you can drag them down to more reasonable level. Squad or smaller sized groups armed with cocktails and/or gas cans can do major dammage. I hope no one is planning to meet a modern military machine on an open field....

Anyway, there's a lot of theories as to what the unbalancing factor will be, race/class war, UN invasion, economic collapse and many others. They are all contributors to a larger catastrophe. It's only a matter of time till something somewhere has to break, wether it will be in our lives or not. When that time comes it's just a matter of how you want to go down.

If any of you are religious than you most likely have at least a little bit of an idea of what's in store for us and when. If any of you have connections than you surely have a much more clear picture of what's going on than most. If you can, try to explain to people that a very real war is already upon us, try to find people who will listen. Don't waste your time on a skeptic, they have what a former employer of mine called a "concrete mind," that is, all mixed up and permanently set. Don't worry too much about it, given time they'll be forced to abandon the self-dellusion they use to insulate themselves from the harsher realities of the world and trade their tinfoil hat jokes for a kevlar helmet.

Everybody, get the fatalism out of your head asap. There ain't no end of the world. This rock was here before us, it'll be here long after us. Sure, there's some nasty stuff on the horizon but it isn't anything that hasn't happened before. We've faced such adversity in the past and emerged stronger, we can again.
 
Salt River Pima Indians faced off the Maricopa County Sherrif, blocking the road with their cars and sitting on them holding rifles.

The sherrif had come to confiscate their then-illegal slot machines. Indians called their bluff.

Abracadabra, now it's legal. It was a matter of will.
 
They brought home a video of a C-130 Warlord in action in A- stan. It was scary. It was from an op that was ran at night, so the footage was from a thermal imager. From something like 4 miles away they demolished a mosque housing insurgents with one shot. They then mowed down the people who were trying to run.

That's not what I recall. The mosque building was declared off-limits and never targeted. Everybody that ran into it lived. Did you not have the speakers turned on?

I'm holding out for a military coup if our self-appointed masters turn against the population. Our military is us. They have taken an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". There should never be any need to fight them (they may fight each other a little though). Resistance to abuse of authority was not in question when I was enlisted. The constitution will NEVER die in the hearts and minds of the American people.

The civilian police force is different. They're used to working against the spirit of freedom and are already prepared to kill other Americans. They will be the canary in the coal mine for any would-be dictator. I hope they don't take a stand against a popular armed rebellion. They are hugely outnumbered. They've sold their services for a buck, getting home at the end of the day is their number one priority. You can pay them enough to enforce the principles of tyranny but not to die for it. The day they fail to report for work is the day this country returns to being a free society and the rebellion ends.

But then, that's just my little pet theory :) When or will it happen? I hope not but I won't put any effort into promoting or avoiding it. Preventative measures are the cause of our doubts here. Mine's more of a "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" philosophy.
 
But Hal does have a point about the potential of a conflict over water. And may well occur here in the US when the Western States try to make a grab for the Great Lakes.


__________________
Blackcloud Six

We are drafting our plans now. :)

We are in severe drought conditions, have been for several years.
A little bit farther south - EXTREME drought conditions. Water tables are really dropping and no relief in sight. Have they stopped development and gulf courses. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Sandia Crest Ski slopes , about 14 miles west of me, have not been able to open for the last 2 years, even with trying to use snow machines.
 
R127

Bombs and artillery are bad news, also one-sided. The Finns held out and weren't as well equiped as we can be. Instead of buying that next fancy rifle or pistol, get yourself some good armor first.

I presume that you are talking about body armor. Exactly what threat level to you hope to defeat, and what (approximately) does that cost?
 
LSCNM

...when the Western States try to make a grab for the Great Lakes.

I know that there's a water shortage out West (and in parts of Texas), but what do you envision, the Kali National Guard invading Michigan and Illinois? Who's going to keep LA from rioting when most of the state's soldiers are away? And how is the entire logistical trail going to be held, especially a big, fat, unmoveable water pipeline stretching 2/3 of the way across the country? And where, exactly, will the US armed forces fit in? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Urban/Rural

this thread illuminates the differences even among ourselves
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35935
As a city kid from NYC I agree with the rancher in jail and would side
with the rural folks ( "country boy can survive" that was a cool song,who did that?)
Balog:
re: Burning Man,it's chilled out for now, but early last year there was some shooting going on at the NV Burning Man ranch, The locals didn't care for the big mess and vagrants Burning Man attracted plus BM also has psudoe
LEO S.U.V's with yellow lights and and flashers and were pulling people over so they could pass them,BM were treating the locals out in the valley really bad and both sides started shooting.
It seems to have calmed down for now,but BM has tons and tons of $$ to pay off bureaucrats to let them crap up the valley,the valley folks have lots of guns and ammo,and are tired of BM hippies telling them they have to live with a bunch of crap from San Francisco techno raver hippy nazi's.
 
I could see a water grab happening... Get enough grabbers in congress, and it's there... Remember - they usually don't think of unintended consequences (hence the title). They just think about garnering votes for the next election.
 
Sam Adams:

Truth is if you're too close to any exploding ordinance you're in really bad shape and likely dead, regardless of armor. That said, a helmet and a vest go a very long way towards keeping you alive and will defeat shrapnel. NIJ Level II or IIIA vests are commonly available and not too expensive. I purchased a IIIA vest new for about $400 back in 2000, you can find armor that's either more expensive or cheaper, but it will all protect you up to its rating level at least. Likewise you can get a PASGT helmet for as low as $50 to $80 bucks, or you can spend $300 on a helmet manufactured by the private sector that is lighter and offers a greater level of protection, level IIIA. If you want you can even invest in rifle plates and be able to stop 7.62x51mm NATO strikes to your center mass. These plates can cost a few hundred dollars. Presently I'm experimenting with some level IIIA limb protection and I might be able to get the cost of a rifle plate down to about $100. Anyway, for between $500 and $1,000 you can afford yourself some excellent protection. If you own a rifle, pistol and shotgun there is really no reason to not invest in armor before you invest in another firearm. Actually, I'd go so far as to say that if you own any one of those three you ought to invest in armor before investing in your next firearm. Even if all you're worried about is home defense, you'll last a lot longer against that badguy if you're bulletproof than if you have a lot more guns besides the one you're holding in your closet or safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top