Technological advances to combat guerrila warfare? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Technological advances to combat guerrila warfare?


emt1581
04-15-2012, 11:54
Seems like technology is what divides sides of conflicts in some situations. The wealthier side uses technology to monitor, locate, and destroy the enemy while the poorer side has less capability, even when grouped together, so they resort to guerrilla-like tactics with simpler/cheaper equipment which can be almost or just as effective.

What equipment is out there that does an excellent job of going on the offensive or defending against guerrilla fighters? Or is technology difficult to develop because we're talking about a human individual that runs around the terrain with an AK/AR and/or sets traps?...Rather than driving a tank and wearing a uniform in large groups.

For those that are curious I'm thinking about that pesky "...enemies foreign and DOMESTIC" clause should it ever come to fruition. I'm thinking guerrilla warfare, on the part of the individual/citizen, is what would happen here...again.

-Emt1581

bdcochran
04-15-2012, 12:08
You want a discussion about equipment. Ok.

The discussion is limited to individual equipment. You may compare what you can buy as a civilian and what was generally military issued in WW2, Korea and even Vietnam.

1. Water purifiers/filters. Yeah, I know, most people don't know the difference between a filter and a purifier. They should look it up.
2. Long term storage, portable foods.
3. Night vision/flashlights. No, I do not have the money to buy Gen 2 and no matter what you read Gen 1 equipment is crap. However, the concept of light at night for a variety of functions gives a great advantage.
4. Optics. Binoculars, range finders, and weapons scopes.
5. Leatherman tools and Swiss Army knives with multiple functions.

No folks, it isn't the usual discussion about 9mm vs. .45acp, Glock vs. Government .45, rural vs. urban. It is identification of specific areas of equipment where there has been a tremendous evolution. If you are deficient in those categories, you will have a problem.

emt1581
04-15-2012, 12:12
You want a discussion about equipment. Ok.

The discussion is limited to individual equipment. You may compare what you can buy as a civilian and what was generally military issued in WW2, Korea and even Vietnam.

1. Water purifiers/filters. Yeah, I know, most people don't know the difference between a filter and a purifier. They should look it up.
2. Long term storage, portable foods.
3. Night vision/flashlights. No, I do not have the money to buy Gen 2 and no matter what you read Gen 1 equipment is crap. However, the concept of light at night for a variety of functions gives a great advantage.
4. Optics. Binoculars, range finders, and weapons scopes.
5. Leatherman tools and Swiss Army knives with multiple functions.

No folks, it isn't the usual discussion about 9mm vs. .45acp, Glock vs. Government .45, rural vs. urban. It is identification of specific areas of equipment where there has been a tremendous evolution. If you are deficient in those categories, you will have a problem.

This addresses the guerilla side of the question...but I was more curious about the "wealthier" side and what technology was created or does extremely well AGAINST the guerrilla fighter? Maybe some form of human RADAR?...Drones?...etc...

Thanks

-Emt1581

expatman
04-15-2012, 12:39
Keep in mind things such as:

Gen. 4 night vision

IR-Infrared

FLIR-Forward Looking Infrared

GSR-Ground Surveillance Radar (Don't know if this is still widely used but I have conducted dismounted infantry assaults against sites with GSR and it detected us in advance)

Thermal Imagery

Movement sensors (Used a lot on the Ho Chi Min trail. Very old tech by todays standards. Can be dropped by aircraft onto or near avenues of travel. No need for boots on the ground to employ. Not sure if it is still in use.)

These are just some of the main threats to Guerrilla/resistance type fighters when going up against, as you put it, wealthier foes or as I would put it, the govt. or U.N. forces for those who dream up that scenario.

There are others but those are from the top of my head.

AK_Stick
04-15-2012, 12:42
UAV's, thermal weapon sights, night vision weapon sights, radio's with the intrinsic ability to crack other peoples commercial (and therefore crappy) encryption. Air support, body armor, extensive training, armored vehicles, superior leadership.


There will never be a guerrilla warfare in America, because unlike the places where you see it, we don't have any of the things that lead to a culture hard enough to do it.


Americans would much rather sit at home and watch TV, and "occupy" a street corner than pick up a rifle, sling a little pack and go running through the woods to die. We're soft, we have alot of nicetys in our lives and every convenience is provided for us. You're not going to be able to find a large group thats willing to stand up and take huge losses that guerrilla forces commonly suffer when engaging a technologically superior forces.

expatman
04-15-2012, 12:55
Someone once brought up a very good point during a conversation with me. Went something like this......"For there to be a revolution (Guerrilla war) in America the participants would have to have ABSOLUTELY nothing left to lose. That would include no house, no ties be it family or friends not already a part of the revolution. No money, at least no bank account in their name. Things like these will all be lost as soon as the authorities discover the identity of those fighting.

Just seemed like a very valid point to me. Maybe we will suffer from an insurgency of homeless people.

Carry16
04-15-2012, 13:10
If you're thinking of detection of individuals approaching your hideout - I would not ignore the old tried and true simple detection like trip wires, flares, tin cans, etc. Although not incorporated into my alarm system I have a very old radar detection device which basically allowed you to create an invisible umbrella radiating from a single point antenna. The size of the umbrella was adjustable as well as the trip threshold. You installed the antenna centrally in your house, preferrably high up in the attic, and anything that came into the umbrella range would trip the system. This could be dogs, people, blowing paper bags, etc. It was also possible to connect multiple antenna and set the system up to only cover the inside of your house.

For my outside detection I use wireless PIR sensors by Optex. They do a great job of notifying me if someone approaches an entrance. I have a drive alarm as well, and several cctv cameras. Now in a SHTF scenario I would supplement this with trip wires, barbed wire, etc. Some of this may not be possible in an urban area I suppose, but can be very effective in a rural area. My wife has a patch of bamboo which would easily make 100,000 punji sticks.

People with lots of money to spend surely have some more technically advanced devices available to them, but you can't beat a few dogs for early warning. :whistling:

If you're ever set up cctv cameras or motion detectors you know how difficult it is to get wide area coverage. You can resort to IR beams I suppose but they are expensive, do not easily go around corners and would be prone to interference.

Night vision and all the other stuff our soldiers use - requires solidiers, not just you and your wife, so I consider them secondary devices at best. They become more valuable if you have a platoon or so at your disposal.

If there are any new tech items available to the public I would enjoy learning about them.

...but I was more curious about the "wealthier" side and what technology was created or does extremely well AGAINST the guerrilla fighter? Maybe some form of human RADAR?...Drones?...etc...

Thanks

-Emt1581

bdcochran
04-15-2012, 13:14
In the early 1960s, I was shown a Naval Warfare problem that tracked developments in Vietnam. The question was what could be done to win. The honest answer was that when you had enough of the population in opposition, warfare would not win.

You ask what should be done from the wealthier side. The context of this forum is not military, but survival. If you want military. read John Poole's books, research battles on youtube (which I have done. In the last week, the 1973 Syrian attack on the Golan Heights, the last Soviet attack on Berlin, and so forth).

Look at the categories that I described. Look at your neighborhood. Do your fellow residents have the best functioning items in those categories? Do you? If you do and they don't, you will probably win.

Survival starts with the individual, goes to the nuclear family, then the extended family and the neighbors.

If you think that a wealthy person having a decent water purifier and/or water filter doesn't give you a significant advantage, then toss yours. Ditto to the flashlight with the lithium batteries, the solar powered motion detector, the scope on your rifle, the rangefinder and the nifty pair of binoculars.

In reading last week, I learned that one of the reasons that the Israelis had been successful was that they had run an experiment of having a couple of units march from one end of Israel to the other in the month of August. The people who were constantly rehydrated were good to go at the end of the march. Now this seems obvious to you, right? Well, the Egyptians did not issue water to keep their troops hydrated. In fact, when I was in the US ARmy (1968-1969) I knew instinctively that "water discipline" was not an answer. STOP LOOKING FOR ANSWERS AT THE BACK OF THE BOOK AND THINK. Want to do well? Have a water bladder and an inline filter and a resupply of good water. If you have those items and the other side does not (guerrilla/policeman/militia/special forces/delta force operator or any other alphabet designation), you stand with an advantage.:faint:

racerford
04-15-2012, 14:50
Well IED seem to work reasonably well until the armor is better on the underside. However, in modern citties with concrete and asphalt roads IED may be less useful against vehicles. Shaped chages and napalm type substances may be effective.

I think tech works well against tech. Modern NV and Thermal imaging systems work well against IR surveilance cameras, and guerilla active NV systems. Against those low tech may work well. Radio activated IEDs can be jammed, simple wires to a hand trigger, not so much.

Trip wires versus IR lasers fo perimeters. How about trips that activate when cut versus when they are pulled? A mixture of open and closed circuit trips. Very long range shots, out beyond NV range. Or the good old fashion mole. You the cook that posions the food. Seduction and assassinantion. You fight the humans not the technology.

Right now many computer security breachs are the results of social engineering or understanding the psychology and laziness of people. The best technology can be thrated by humans that use it.

Akita
04-15-2012, 15:38
Pet Peeve: There is no such thing as 'gen 4' night vision. Anyone trying to sell you some is a crook.

The US MILITARY, and the US MILITARY ONLY, designates the generations of night vision and they say gen3 is as high as it gets. Yes, theres different types of night vision gen 3's with pros and cons of each, but there is no gen 4.

AK_Stick
04-15-2012, 15:51
Well IED seem to work reasonably well until the armor is better on the underside. However, in modern citties with concrete and asphalt roads IED may be less useful against vehicles. Shaped chages and napalm type substances may be effective.

I think tech works well against tech. Modern NV and Thermal imaging systems work well against IR surveilance cameras, and guerilla active NV systems. Against those low tech may work well. Radio activated IEDs can be jammed, simple wires to a hand trigger, not so much.

Trip wires versus IR lasers fo perimeters. How about trips that activate when cut versus when they are pulled? A mixture of open and closed circuit trips. Very long range shots, out beyond NV range. Or the good old fashion mole. You the cook that posions the food. Seduction and assassinantion. You fight the humans not the technology.

Right now many computer security breachs are the results of social engineering or understanding the psychology and laziness of people. The best technology can be thrated by humans that use it.


Honestly, IED's aren't that effective. For every 1 that kills or damages a vehicle, there are dozens that do not. We're pretty good about learning.

Secondly, in America there isn't the kind of explosives and quantities available to the public like in A-stan/Iraq/elsewhere in the world.

racerford
04-15-2012, 21:40
Honestly, IED's aren't that effective. For every 1 that kills or damages a vehicle, there are dozens that do not. We're pretty good about learning.

Secondly, in America there isn't the kind of explosives and quantities available to the public like in A-stan/Iraq/elsewhere in the world.

Fair enough on the IEDs.

On the availability of explosives, I am not so sure it would stay this way, if it came to the time where civilians were acting against military units on US soil. I saw an article on some military types that were picked up because an anti-tank rocket ended up at one of their homes. I understand C4 goes missing on a regular basis. Also seriously messed up meth head seem to be able to cook up meth with no problem.

Many explosive are relatively simple to make, even the high explosives. Some are dangerous to make due to their instability especially in their making. I have known conceptually how to make nitro-glycerin, nitrocellulose, TNT since I was in high school. I never attempted due to a desire to stay out of jail, and keep my appendages. I am funny like that. As I recall an IED took down half of a large building in Oklahoma City.

You are right, the vast majority of American would NEVER resort to guerilla warfare. IIRC the vast majority of American were not involved/committed to the Revolutionary War. The problem comes when enough of the population feels like they do not have much to loose. It really doesn't take a lot 3-10% would probably be enough. As long as the vast majority of the population is apathetic, or at least to lazy/fearful to get invole, that should be enough. I think in the US I think you would find vast majority do fit in those categories.

I do think you are right we are unlikely to see IED used used to any large extent in the US to "save" the country, and are still more like to see them used by terror elements against civilians to try to destroy America.

You are right high tech does really hamper the effectiveness of guerilla warfare. However old fashoned deception and subteruge are still very effective against the weakest link.

RedHaze
04-15-2012, 21:57
http://gjhgjgkjgj.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/anfo2.gif

They'd certainly lock down chemical supplies. Because with all the wealth of information out there, it's just as easy to "cook" high explosives as it is to "cook" methamphetamine.

For instance, R.D.X. is way simple to make if you have a little more than a basic understanding of what you're doing. Combine that with ANFO, and wammy.

TangoFoxtrot
04-16-2012, 04:52
Technology does always mean a win. Determination and tactics could win the fight, especially when you go in and occupy someones country when you shouldn't.

Texas357
04-16-2012, 13:21
http://gjhgjgkjgj.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/anfo2.gif

They'd certainly lock down chemical supplies. Because with all the wealth of information out there, it's just as easy to "cook" high explosives as it is to "cook" methamphetamine.

For instance, R.D.X. is way simple to make if you have a little more than a basic understanding of what you're doing. Combine that with ANFO, and wammy.

Our agriculture is very fertilizer-dependent. Locking down every buk nitrate source is no simple task.

And while you are guarding the fertilizer, who is securing the fuel? Organized disruption of fuel and electricity would turn most American cities into scary places.

NecoDude
04-16-2012, 14:10
http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/t-28-trojan-bnf-PKZ4480

emt1581
04-16-2012, 18:53
http://www.horizonhobby.com/products/t-28-trojan-bnf-PKZ4480

All that I see is a black box.

-Emt1581

G26man
04-16-2012, 19:25
Our government (i.e. Military) has now had almost 10 years experience in actively quelling grassroots insurgencies. Improving tactics, designing and fielding specialized equipment, refining and redesigning tactics and equipment, etc. We're damn good at it now. Best in the world. Just keep that in mind. Any forcible resistance to the sitting government in this country (if that is what you were alluding to) would likely require a large defection of the government forces to have a snowball in hell's chance of success IMHO.

RedHaze
04-16-2012, 19:34
Our agriculture is very fertilizer-dependent. Locking down every buk nitrate source is no simple task.

And while you are guarding the fertilizer, who is securing the fuel? Organized disruption of fuel and electricity would turn most American cities into scary places.

I wasn't eluding to locking down the fertilizer and fuel. Because ANFO by itself isn't all that useful. I was talking about the kind of chemicals needed to "cook" high explosives like R.D.X. which would be used as the detonator for an ANFO based IED.

grasshoppa
04-16-2012, 20:01
Don't assume that the military the guerrillas are fighting domestically will be the same motivated military we have overseas. I bet command and control would be an isse.

Texas357
04-16-2012, 22:55
I wasn't eluding to locking down the fertilizer and fuel. Because ANFO by itself isn't all that useful. I was talking about the kind of chemicals needed to "cook" high explosives like R.D.X. which would be used as the detonator for an ANFO based IED.

There's more than one way to skin that particular cat.

Big Bird
04-17-2012, 08:44
There are some pretty good texts on Guerrilla Warfare going back 100 years.

Technology and weapons are not your primary tools.

The Brits have more experience than anyone with guerrilla warfare and they have a history of winning guerrilla wars. Look at the Boer War, etc.

humanguerrilla
04-17-2012, 09:17
+Presence of more and more cameras in society, satellite imagery, domestic spying datamining and tracking, biometric identification systems (facial, gait analysis, etc.), UAVs and robotic platforms, acoustic gunfire and directional sniper detection, media consolidation and control, area denial and new crowd control technologies

AK_Stick
04-17-2012, 12:21
Don't assume that the military the guerrillas are fighting domestically will be the same motivated military we have overseas. I bet command and control would be an isse.



Right up till you kill one of their buddies. Then its whole hog warfare. And the American populace doesn't have the stomach for that kind of fight against the military.

bdcochran
04-17-2012, 12:31
When you research as Big Bird suggests, you learn that concentration camps, destruction of property, starving of the population does work.

Brian Jenkins is the big wig at Rand who is always interviewed about counter terrorism. 30 years ago, I loaned his secretary a book of translations on dealing with guerrilla warfare. The most succient recommendation was written by a Soviet General who was in charge of pacifying Chechnya in the late 1920s. He said that short of killing everyone and/or deporting them (which was done), you could not win a guerrilla war.

1944 - Soviet Union - The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), predecessor to the Committee for State Security (KGB), was in charge of the operation. In eight days, the NKVD forcefully deported 350,000 to 400,000 Chechens and 91,250 Ingush.

Also study the Shenandoah VAlley campaign. The Union won after burning people out in the Valley.

1870s and the American west. The US Army burned the grasslands.

So, EMT, that is how you win.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 13:57
So to win, the regular army would have to totally destroy the will and ability of the irregulars to fight. Does that become more difficult when the regular army recognizes and identifies with the irregulars?

Would there the same eagerness to join up if they would be setting up checkpoints and raids in their home state as there is in foreign countries? You'd have to maintain a belief that the regular army is fighting an enemy of America, no matter how many Americans sympathize.

Bren
04-17-2012, 14:16
This addresses the guerilla side of the question...

Actually, it doesn't. On the guerilla/insurgent side, the only piece of technology that really matters is the camera. Winning military victories in the field is only a tool for influencing the public, as it is reported in the media. Without press coverage, guerillas and terrorists would disappear.

bdcochran
04-17-2012, 14:59
Man, I read all these comments and I shake my head.

We did have a civil war. The current estimate is that 1 in 10 males died. They spoke the same language. Some wore uniforms. Some didn't.

You go along in this world and most people assume that things will always be the same and that s--t doesn't happen.
Try telling historically to Russian merchants, Czarist officers, kulaks in the 1913 that life wasn't capable of big changes.

Any culture, country, political system is capable of turning on a dime. People can fantasize all that they want on the order of "it can't happen here".

I read the story of a French national from Alsace who was pressed into the German Army, went over to the Soviets on the Eastern Front, was given a British uniform, joined the Armericans and participated in the invasion of southern
France.

The following is for Texas357. It takes guts to be a conscientious objector, to desert a unit, to put up individual resistance. Most people don't have it.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 15:20
Actually, it doesn't. On the guerilla/insurgent side, the only piece of technology that really matters is the camera. Winning military victories in the field is only a tool for influencing the public, as it is reported in the media. Without press coverage, guerillas and terrorists would disappear.

So: censor the news, print media, youtube, glocktalk, any site they might use to spread their message or that might report their actions?


You beat the guerillas by making sure they have no sympathy, no popular support, nowhere to rest, and nowhere to resupply, in other words the same way you beat an army.

AK_Stick
04-17-2012, 15:23
So: censor the news, print media, youtube, glocktalk, any site they might use to spread their message or that might report their actions?


You beat the guerillas by making sure they have no sympathy, no popular support, nowhere to rest, and nowhere to resupply, in other words the same way you beat an army.



good luck with that.

fighting an army is nothing like fighting guerrilla's.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 15:31
The following is for Texas357. It takes guts to be a conscientious objector, to desert a unit, to put up individual resistance. Most people don't have it.

I am aware of that. I meant to aim my comments at the recruiting end of it (assuming guerillias aren't beaten within a few years, you will need to recruit). A draft? The rebels claim you are tyrranical and must draft because you have no popular support.

The American Civil has some examples of regional loyalty - how would those troops have acted if ordered to attack their own home towns?

How long would the war have lasted if every battle made it onto Youtube. And while many had poor uniforms, they were still mostly trying to fight for organized sides, i.e. Union army vs Confederate army rather than insurgents vs occupiers.

Big Bird
04-17-2012, 15:37
So: censor the news, print media, youtube, glocktalk, any site they might use to spread their message or that might report their actions?


You beat the guerillas by making sure they have no sympathy, no popular support, nowhere to rest, and nowhere to resupply, in other words the same way you beat an army.


Not exactly. You defeat an army by destroying its equipment and killing its soldiers. You deny it the ability to resupply, feed, fuel and move/communicate. The Army either surrenders or ceases to be an effective battlefield threat.

An insurgency is defeated over time by co-opting the local population and denying the enemy support and eventually the cooperation of the local population that is required for the insurgency to even exist. Of course you can go Ghengis Kahn and kill everyone in your way. But that's probably COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to you goal of winning the counterinsurgency war because in the short run you are probably cretaing more insurgents than you are killing. The Soviets were good at that but not good enough. They failed in Afghanistan... Many ancient armies were good at it as well but outright slaughter, rape and enslavement of the conquered was the norm back then as well. In the modern era its a different game. As I said, study the history of the British Empire in India, South Africa, and elsewhere. The Brits made a lot of mistakes--no doubt. But they wrote the book when it comes to fighting and winning a modern counterinsurgency. They consider it an 8-10 year venture. Weapons are only tools to maintain control of local tactical problems. However, the overall counterinsurgency strategy has little to do with guns and weaponry.

Again, read some British Colonial History. Our own US Special Forces doctrine is actually modeled after some of the things developed by the Brits.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 15:41
good luck with that.

fighting an army is nothing like fighting guerrilla's.

You have to use different methods, but when an army has no ammo, food, or fuel , whether due to destruction or because the country of origin no longer is willing to keep sending them, the fight is over.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 15:46
Not exactly. You defeat an army by destroying its equipment and killing its soldiers. You deny it the ability to resupply, feed, fuel and move/communicate. The Army either surrenders or ceases to be an effective battlefield threat.

An insurgency is defeated over time by co-opting the local population and denying the enemy support and eventually the cooperation of the local population that is required for the insurgency to even exist. Of course you can go Ghengis Kahn and kill everyone in your way. ......
I wasnt suggesting to kill the sympathizers, I was saying that you must remove their sympathy for the guerrillas.

AK_Stick
04-17-2012, 16:20
You have to use different methods, but when an army has no ammo, food, or fuel , whether due to destruction or because the country of origin no longer is willing to keep sending them, the fight is over.



They're nothing alike.


Defending an incorrect statement, will not make it into a correct one.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 20:37
They're nothing alike.


Defending an incorrect statement, will not make it into a correct one.

Sure thing. Got any good fortune cookies lately?

AK_Stick
04-17-2012, 21:33
Yeah, it said, Texas357 knows nothing of asymmetrical warfare in the 21st century.



I hate it when they're right

Texas357
04-17-2012, 22:28
Yeah, it said, Texas357 knows nothing of asymmetrical warfare in the 21st century.



I hate it when they're right

Well clearly you must be an expert on the matter to have so confidently called me wrong on the internet. Between that and the fortune cookie you're all set.

Was the food that came with the fortune cookie any good?

AK_Stick
04-17-2012, 23:09
Well from your statements so far, you haven't shown a knowledge or understanding of how we combat asymmetrical warfare currently.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but the real experts, and the way we do things now, aren't the way you're claiming it works.

And I've got 3 deployments, supporting counter insurgency operations, and I've got to have severa sit down over dinner conversations with the theater commander about how things were going, and why we did something the way we did.

Texas357
04-17-2012, 23:47
Well from your statements so far, you haven't shown a knowledge or understanding of how we combat asymmetrical warfare currently.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but the real experts, and the way we do things now, aren't the way you're claiming it works.

And I've got 3 deployments, supporting counter insurgency operations, and I've got to have severa sit down over dinner conversations with the theater commander about how things were going, and why we did something the way we did.

And i hope your dinner was good, whatever you had. I am not getting out the ruler so we can compare sizes.

Did you try the chicken?

grasshoppa
04-18-2012, 11:05
Right up till you kill one of their buddies. Then its whole hog warfare. And the American populace doesn't have the stomach for that kind of fight against the military.


The American populace includes the US military.

While it may start out as a guerilla action, it could very quickly become a cilvil war. In that case, it won't just be the US mil against armed Rednecks. There are more civilians who have served than than those who are currently serving. Look at Libya and Syria. Our.gov knows that, too. Why were the Marines ordered to remove the bolts from their weapons?


Plus, it'll be significantly different than what is being experienced inA'stan. Over there, it's us against them; different culture and once we leavewe really don't care what happens. Soldiers just want to make it back to theirfamilies and friends. At home, many in the military will be able to at least sympathize withthe OPFOR.

TangoFoxtrot
04-19-2012, 04:45
Right up till you kill one of their buddies. Then its whole hog warfare. And the American populace doesn't have the stomach for that kind of fight against the military.

You are joking! Right around 50% of the U.S.civilian population is armed. If civilians are pushed hard enough they will kick some serious a## in return. Armies even our own are not aways successful against the populace, examples; Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few. Don't sell the civilians short. You start killing a man's women and children and you are asking for fury at its best, especially in a country like the U.S.that is armed to the teeth.

emt1581
04-19-2012, 05:00
You are joking! Right around 50% of the U.S.civilian population is armed. If civilians are pushed hard enough they will kick some serious a## in return. Armies even our own are not aways successful against the populace, examples; Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few. Don't sell the civilians short. You start killing a man's women and children and you are asking for fury at its best, especially in a country like the U.S.that is armed to the teeth.

Good you caught that quick and threw a K in. ;)

As far as the populace, I agree based on what I've read. I think the estimate was something like under 10 percent of gun owners would have to make a stand in order to topple the military but that may have been comparing numbers NOT technology.

...how did this conversation get to be an "us vs. them" topic? ...it was about technology no?

And where are those so confident that the US soldier would NEVER harm his/her own people??

-Emt1581

TangoFoxtrot
04-19-2012, 05:10
Emt1581 you just stole my thunder. The edit to my post to add was...I have a hard time wrapping my head around an American soldier would take an order to kill U.S. civilians. I know it would happen but maybe I just don't want to believe it.


Quote:...how did this conversation get to be an "us vs. them" topic? ...it was about technology no?

I think someone steered us in that direction, but I think it kind of goes hand in hand.

expatman
04-19-2012, 05:15
I can see it happening if that soldier was to be told that who he was fighting and supposed to kill was an "enemy of the state" and he believed it. I can also see a soldier believing a lot of simple lies told to him by the govt. A soldier has a duty NOT to follow an unlawful order but the trick is that he has to know it is unlawful first. I can see where the line between lawful/unlawful could be distorted in order to confuse a soldier. Sometimes things are not as clear cut as we would like.

Bilbo Bagins
04-19-2012, 07:40
Guerrila warfare is practiced when the other side cannot raise an army of regular soldiers, or fight toe to toe with an invading, or with a revolution the government's standing army.

A good example of this is the first part of the movie "Micheal Collins" where it shows the "Easter Uprising". Back then the IRB (Irish Republicans who wanted the British out) had organized militias and a military council. When they thought the British military would be too wrapped up with WWI they thought they would take military action and sieze government buildings around Dublin. Well the IRB militia was still no match for the limited British troops stationed in Ireland, and the movie shows a senseless standoff to hold a crumbling parliment building. Micheal Collins finds this way of fighting the British futile and urges the remaining fighters to try Guerrila tactics from then on.

Guerrila warfare is similar to terrorism just in a war zone and against a military. How do you beat it?

1) Intellegence - The way you beat a band of guerrila fighters, who do hit and run attacks, then go hide in the mountain, forest, or jungle is to gather intel on them. Maybe a satellite sees a compound in the woods or a tunnel network in the mountains. Maybe a villager tells your soldier about some Guerrila activity he saw, and maybe a captured Guerrila mentions future plans during interrogations.

2) Winning hearts and minds - While it was a popular saying Vietnam that was later scoffed, it was successful in places like Iraq and with others wars. Its hard for a regular army to be successful if almost the entire population hates them and does not want them there. Same is true for the Guerrila fighters. When the masses hate you, they will join the enemy fighting force or support staff, rat you out to the enemy, deny you safe haven or suppiles, and make it difficult to operate and to pull off successful attack.

3) Adaptive attacks, defenses and counter-attacks - In the Soviet/Afghan War the soviets were kicking the Afghans buts with air support, then the Afghans got stinger missiles and the Soviets could not adapt. The Iraqis lost with direct engagment with the USA, they switched to Guerrila attacks and IED attacks, the US adapted with advances in vehicle protection, and anti IED mesures, intel and winning H&M, then the insurgents focused more on Iraqi civilians and government, because they could not adapt. Vietnam, The US kept up as best it could militarly with advances in helicopter use, night vision, and special forces uses, but the Vietnamese propanganda won some hearts and minds in the USA, with US citizen disparing its own citizens who were most drafted into the military. Enough public opinion swayed making the war un-popular to continue to fight.

grasshoppa
04-19-2012, 08:26
I can't vouch for the guy, but read his blog titled "You can't beat a conventional military force with guerrilla tactics in today's world".

It ain't all about technology.



http://mountainguerrilla.blogspot.com/

AK_Stick
04-20-2012, 01:52
The American populace includes the US military.

While it may start out as a guerilla action, it could very quickly become a cilvil war. In that case, it won't just be the US mil against armed Rednecks. There are more civilians who have served than than those who are currently serving. Look at Libya and Syria. Our.gov knows that, too. Why were the Marines ordered to remove the bolts from their weapons?


Plus, it'll be significantly different than what is being experienced inA'stan. Over there, it's us against them; different culture and once we leavewe really don't care what happens. Soldiers just want to make it back to theirfamilies and friends. At home, many in the military will be able to at least sympathize withthe OPFOR.

Probably not. In all honesty, the balance of power is so far against the "armed rednecks" that it would never get to the point that it would be a serious fight.

"They" being the fictional guerrila's can't communicate without "us" being the MIL or any .GOV agency that wants to track them from hearing them. We have the ability to easily crack any phone/radio encryption they can acquire. And we have the brute force code crackers to break any local code they could devise.

They have no heavy weapons, and no easy access to heavy weapons.

They have no access to live feed intel, they have no access to overhead surveillance, they have no UAV's.

They have no medical support. They have no logistical support capability that we can't easily pin down, and they have no armor, or air, or fire support. They lack any sort of advanced NV or IR weapon combat multipliers on a broad scale.

If it came to a shooting war, the miniscule minority that MIGHT actually have the sack to actually pick up a gun. Ignoring the fact that even of those shooters, only a small percentage will actually attempt to kill another soldier. After the massacre that became the first battle got out, the majority would lose their hunger for a fight.

Unlike Libya where the balance was much more even, American civilians are grossly out-matched by even second line Guard and Reserve non infantry units. Hell my unit alone has more belt fed weapons, and heavy weapons than there are probably legal NFA belt feds in the state of AK.

You are joking! Right around 50% of the U.S.civilian population is armed. If civilians are pushed hard enough they will kick some serious a## in return. Armies even our own are not aways successful against the populace, examples; Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan to name a few. Don't sell the civilians short. You start killing a man's women and children and you are asking for fury at its best, especially in a country like the U.S.that is armed to the teeth.

And of that 50% we might, and I think its a VERY liberal estimation see 2% of those pick up their guns and resist. Of that, statistically speaking, not even 50% of that 2% would actually attempt to kill the enemy even if you could get them all to fire in combat.

Also, militarily speaking, we kicked the **** out of Iraqi's Afgani's and Vietnamese. Every time we meet, we kill scores more than they ever can. Hence why they've take the TTP of attempting to engage us indirectly. And even then, we've adapted and we're killing hundreds of them a month with predators, and NVG/FLIR equipped soldiers and aviation assets.

Our civilians are not "armed to the teeth" Compared to the average Iraqi village, they're under-armed.


Not to mention the fact that we're a soft country, with a population that is almost all overweight, and out of shape.

If you could even get them to decide to rise up, they might raise a little hell for a few weeks till the .mil got spun up, but as soon as they got spooled, and started actively fighting, it would be a wholesale slaughter, and any resistance fighters would quickly lose their appetite for battle.

It sounds nice and all to say I'll go and all, but when people start seeing their buddy dying in a ditch screaming for his wife or mother and the start thinking about who's going to look after their kids/wife when they get hit the reality of warfare is going to set in. And thats a reality that we've long sheltered the American people from.

You know what real war looks like. You know how VERY few have an appetite for what it really is. You bring that home to modern soft, pathetic America, and your "2%" is quickly going to be .2% and shrinking every time they're dumb enough to try and go after a military thats spent a decade kicking the absolute **** out of an insurgent basis that has decades more training and experience not to mention funding, equipment, and weapons than will ever be available to American civilians.

AK_Stick
04-20-2012, 02:03
Good you caught that quick and threw a K in. ;)

As far as the populace, I agree based on what I've read. I think the estimate was something like under 10 percent of gun owners would have to make a stand in order to topple the military but that may have been comparing numbers NOT technology.

...how did this conversation get to be an "us vs. them" topic? ...it was about technology no?

And where are those so confident that the US soldier would NEVER harm his/her own people??

-Emt1581

Where did you read this? If you only really look at the very basic numbers and ignore any sort of logic, or facts that might be an appealing statement, but it doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny.

Its what, 2% of Americans that serve in the .mil? I don't think you'd have a chance in hell of raising 5 times that number of people to go to war, hell, I don't think you could honestly match the number of soldiers the .mil has now at 2%.

Secondly, of that 2%, not every soldier in the .mil is going to fight the enemy. Take a look at some of Col. Grossman's writings on just how few soldiers actually will engage the enemy in combat. And those are soldiers who've been thoroughly conditioned to fight and kill others.

While you may be able to get a small contingent percentage wise that will be able to/willing to fight and kill without that sort of brainwashing, the majority of people who own guns, will fall into the category of people who even if they shoot, will not actually attempt to kill the enemy. We've seen this and can document it with military soldiers from different wars.

So you couple a lack of training, lack of leadership, a body that will be primarily resistant to killing of the enemy, give them no fires, or air support, and put them at the huge technological disadvantage we see todays civilians at compared to even a reservist soldier and you've created a unattainable victory scenario.

Emt1581 you just stole my thunder. The edit to my post to add was...I have a hard time wrapping my head around an American soldier would take an order to kill U.S. civilians. I know it would happen but maybe I just don't want to believe it.


Quote:...how did this conversation get to be an "us vs. them" topic? ...it was about technology no?

I think someone steered us in that direction, but I think it kind of goes hand in hand.

It really depends. If say, some group was attempting to subvert the gov't or overthrow it, or use terrorist tactics like the IRA, I can easily see how it would be fairly simple to get the .mil to engage US "civilians". I use quotes because at that point you've made yourself a terrorist, and have lost the protections of a civilian, but they're not technically a military body.

eyelikeglasses
04-20-2012, 03:03
Our government (i.e. Military) has now had almost 10 years experience in actively quelling grassroots insurgencies. Improving tactics, designing and fielding specialized equipment, refining and redesigning tactics and equipment, etc. We're damn good at it now. Best in the world. Just keep that in mind. Any forcible resistance to the sitting government in this country (if that is what you were alluding to) would likely require a large defection of the government forces to have a snowball in hell's chance of success IMHO.
All enemies, foreign and domestic.

TangoFoxtrot
04-20-2012, 04:20
Guerrila warfare is practiced when the other side cannot raise an army of regular soldiers, or fight toe to toe with an invading, or with a revolution the government's standing army.

A good example of this is the first part of the movie "Micheal Collins" where it shows the "Easter Uprising". Back then the IRB (Irish Republicans who wanted the British out) had organized militias and a military council. When they thought the British military would be too wrapped up with WWI they thought they would take military action and sieze government buildings around Dublin. Well the IRB militia was still no match for the limited British troops stationed in Ireland, and the movie shows a senseless standoff to hold a crumbling parliment building. Micheal Collins finds this way of fighting the British futile and urges the remaining fighters to try Guerrila tactics from then on.

Guerrila warfare is similar to terrorism just in a war zone and against a military. How do you beat it?

1) Intellegence - The way you beat a band of guerrila fighters, who do hit and run attacks, then go hide in the mountain, forest, or jungle is to gather intel on them. Maybe a satellite sees a compound in the woods or a tunnel network in the mountains. Maybe a villager tells your soldier about some Guerrila activity he saw, and maybe a captured Guerrila mentions future plans during interrogations.

2) Winning hearts and minds - While it was a popular saying Vietnam that was later scoffed, it was successful in places like Iraq and with others wars. Its hard for a regular army to be successful if almost the entire population hates them and does not want them there. Same is true for the Guerrila fighters. When the masses hate you, they will join the enemy fighting force or support staff, rat you out to the enemy, deny you safe haven or suppiles, and make it difficult to operate and to pull off successful attack.

3) Adaptive attacks, defenses and counter-attacks - In the Soviet/Afghan War the soviets were kicking the Afghans buts with air support, then the Afghans got stinger missiles and the Soviets could not adapt. The Iraqis lost with direct engagment with the USA, they switched to Guerrila attacks and IED attacks, the US adapted with advances in vehicle protection, and anti IED mesures, intel and winning H&M, then the insurgents focused more on Iraqi civilians and government, because they could not adapt. Vietnam, The US kept up as best it could militarly with advances in helicopter use, night vision, and special forces uses, but the Vietnamese propanganda won some hearts and minds in the USA, with US citizen disparing its own citizens who were most drafted into the military. Enough public opinion swayed making the war un-popular to continue to fight.


Well stated Bilbo.

TangoFoxtrot
04-20-2012, 04:33
Quote: And of that 50% we might, and I think its a VERY liberal estimation see 2% of those pick up their guns and resist. Of that, statistically speaking, not even 50% of that 2% would actually attempt to kill the enemy even if you could get them all to fire in combat.

Like I said push people hard enough, kill their loved ones and they will bring bthe fight to you.

Quote: Also, militarily speaking, we kicked the **** out of Iraqi's Afgani's and Vietnamese. Every time we meet, we kill scores more than they ever can. Hence why they've take the TTP of attempting to engage us indirectly. And even then, we've adapted and we're killing hundreds of them a month with predators, and NVG/FLIR equipped soldiers and aviation assets.

This is true to a point.. BUT! we win the battles, and lose the wars. We wind up going home with our tail between our legs. We did it in Veitnam, Iraq, and we will in Afghanistan like the Russians did. We have a habit of kick a**, occupy, rebuild kiss kiss we are sorry . NO!!! we have to just go in kick a** and go home and leave them there to bleed out. PERIOD. Occupation, world policing, and rebuiding is not the answer ..but we never learn ...and we can't afford it!!!!

Quote: Our civilians are not "armed to the teeth" Compared to the average Iraqi village, they're under-armed.

Yes we are armed to the teeth...well people like you and I anyway. And yes I know about Iraqi villages I spent 14 months in country.

Bren
04-20-2012, 05:00
This is true to a point.. BUT! we win the battles, and lose the wars.

And the very simple reason, especially in the age of insurgents and guerillas, is that Soldiers decide the outcome of battles, but the civilian government decides the outcome of wars. The expected result is that we will continue to win battles while the civilians decide not to use that ability to win the war and, ultimately, to run away, when there is no other way to avoid winning the war.

TangoFoxtrot
04-20-2012, 05:13
Quote: but the civilian government decides the outcome of wars.

Elected officials we elect! It is what it is!

racerford
04-20-2012, 08:47
I would agree technological advantage goes very strongly against guerilla warfare. The only way for guerilla warfare to work would be to acquire that same technology.

It would require defection of military members with weapons. Moles that would sabotage the military from within. In the US essentially all of the military technology is produce in the private sector with civilians producing it. Guerillas would have to acquire tech before it gets to the military.

To stop this the government would have use the military to oppress the people. Killing innocent civilians creates fighters. If you kill a man's wife/children and give him nothing left to live for, he becomes a suicide fighter that is harder to protect against because his actions could be irrational.

Guerilla warfare would likely fail against the military. It may still be effective against the government. The method would be to avoid engaging the military. That is how terrorism is effective. It is one step further removed from guerilla warfare.

rwrjr
04-20-2012, 10:04
And the very simple reason, especially in the age of insurgents and guerillas, is that Soldiers decide the outcome of battles, but the civilian government decides the outcome of wars. The expected result is that we will continue to win battles while the civilians decide not to use that ability to win the war and, ultimately, to run away, when there is no other way to avoid winning the war.

Said another way, all wars are political in nature. And don't confuse civilians with politicians. Civilians are largely ignorant and nothing more than useful idiots to the controlling political establishment.

Some do not seem to realize that the military is but one tool of the controlling political establishment. Once they find that the tool is no longer effective towards achieving their goals the tool is discarded or returned to the tool box. Some also do not realize that the political establishment isn't entirely truthful and forthcoming regarding said goals.

AK_Stick
04-20-2012, 11:26
This is true to a point.. BUT! we win the battles, and lose the wars. We wind up going home with our tail between our legs. We did it in Veitnam, Iraq, and we will in Afghanistan like the Russians did.



Against a battle hardened culture, with lots of experience.


Not a against a bunch of pansy American softies who think life is rough because American Idol got interrupted.

G29Reload
04-20-2012, 11:39
Americans would much rather sit at home and watch TV, and "occupy" a street corner than pick up a rifle, sling a little pack and go running through the woods to die. We're soft, we have alot of nicetys in our lives and every convenience is provided for us. You're not going to be able to find a large group thats willing to stand up and take huge losses that guerrilla forces commonly suffer when engaging a technologically superior forces.

I think this may be true only because we haven't faced a compelling enough threat…if the threat were sufficient, things would start changing. Just the consternation over political-only events has produced its share of strident patriots…ann Barnhardt, Ted Nugent…etc….there are them and there are the couch sitters…but apathy can get washed away really quickly when the shooting starts,

I give you:

-The Civil War….men showing up down South with their own rifles…

-The day after Pearl Harbor…recruiting stations were swamped, people lied about their age to get in the scrap!

-9/11…the sense of unity that prevailed…the guns were flying off the shelf…

…just as they did after the last election.

No, its what the threat is. As the saying goes, if you run outside with your rifle and no one else is there…

It's not time yet.

AK_Stick
04-20-2012, 11:49
Eh, in the civil war, and even WWII it was a much different scenario as the balance of power weapons wise was much closer than today. Also the people were also a hell of alot more involved, and willing to work for theirs. Today we have a completely different culture and because of that, you can't really use it as a valid point.


We saw a huge upswing in recruiting after 9/11, but that was to join a premier military force.



If the prospect was to join a militia group with little or no training, and then go toe to toe with a front line military force today, you'd have a hell of alot less recruits. And after the first battle, word would get out about just how bad an idea it would be.


It simply isn't possible for any sort of large scale guerrilla combat in North America by our populace, unless they're funded and supported by outside means. And because of our location, that is highly unlikely.



Every "successful" insurgency, has had massive outside support of weapons, tech, and instruction/medical supplies to keep them in the fight.

Lybia, NATO was providing air support, SF help, and weapons.
A-stan against the Russians, We, along with SA, were providing millions/billions in top of the line weapons. Mulsim countries around the world were shipping in "fighters"
A-stan against us, Iran, China, and the Muslim countries were providing millions in top of the line weapons, and almost endless supply of martyrs/soldiers from Chechnya and other Muslim strongholds. Same with Iraq.

Vietnam, Russia, China, providing high dollar tech, training, and in some cases, actual soldiers.


Without that, there is absolutely no hope of Americans having any sort of real guerrilla war. What we would have, is a very short, very bloody counter insurgency action where the insurgents realized that resisting was very costly.

TactiCool
04-20-2012, 19:50
Seems like technology is what divides sides of conflicts in some situations. The wealthier side uses technology to monitor, locate, and destroy the enemy while the poorer side has less capability, even when grouped together, so they resort to guerrilla-like tactics with simpler/cheaper equipment which can be almost or just as effective.

What equipment is out there that does an excellent job of going on the offensive or defending against guerrilla fighters? Or is technology difficult to develop because we're talking about a human individual that runs around the terrain with an AK/AR and/or sets traps?...Rather than driving a tank and wearing a uniform in large groups.

For those that are curious I'm thinking about that pesky "...enemies foreign and DOMESTIC" clause should it ever come to fruition. I'm thinking guerrilla warfare, on the part of the individual/citizen, is what would happen here...again.

-Emt1581

Do you work for DHS? :tongueout:

TangoFoxtrot
04-21-2012, 05:54
Against a battle hardened culture, with lots of experience.


Not a against a bunch of pansy American softies who think life is rough because American Idol got interrupted.

Don't sell out all of the American public! There are ex-military, police, firemen, gang members, or just people with black hearts that would stand and fight if need be. They are "hardened" in their own way. I will agree that there are some that would freak outif put under the stress of having to confront no American Idol.

The attitude that you can defeat any bunch of pansies, because we are so rough and tough, is what gets soldiers killed....Never Never under estimate anybody, especially when your on their turf! We made this mistake many times over and our soldiers died.

Chindo18Z
04-21-2012, 13:03
Originally Posted by AK_Stick:
Against a battle hardened culture, with lots of experience.

Just for consideration...

There are well over 11 million Vietnam, Grenada, Panama Invasion, Gulf War, Balkan Wars, Africa, & GWOT (OEF/OIF) veterans.

There are more discharged OEF/OIF veterans in society today than there are currently serving Armed Forces Members (of all branches). Many of those veterans are more experienced than the current crop of first termers who comprise the bulk of our Active Duty forces (and who themselves will also soon ETS to civilian life).

The US armed forces (Active, Guard, Reserve) maintain ~1.4 million members on any given day and total US police forces comprise about 800,000 officers (Federal, State, Local). Call it 2.3 million armed agents of the state to conduct national defense (worldwide), secure the borders, and maintain domestic law and order.

There are 313+ million people in the US. Do the math.

One enforcer/defender for every 136 citizens.

If those forces were directed to implement Unconstitutional population control measures against their own citizenry, they would have to control and secure:

1. A continental sized country with the third largest population of any nation on the planet...and almost 20,000 miles of coastal/land border (not counting Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico).

2. 209 million youths/adults (if you don't count children under 14 and elderly over 65). That still gives you one enforcer for every 90+ adult citizens capable of bearing arms.

3. A literate & cynical populace with access to information age technology, universal transport, and enough existing civilian arms to already equip every single fighting age citizen...almost from Day One.

If not assured of societal approval for their actions, a large portion of that 2.3 million government force would 1) rebel 2) desert or 3) remain passively "neutral"...leaving a significantly smaller, less ready, and inevitably less dedicated element. This element, losing folks every day due to attrition (combat, "sick-outs", or desertion) would have to lock down every strategic node, population center, and means of production in the land. All while simultaneously providing close protection to the regime and possibly prosecuting a nation wide COIN campaign...AND do all that while maintaining a credible deterrent against potential foreign opponents.

Entire major units (and all their associated heavy weaponry, equipment, vessels, aircraft, and electronics) would become combat ineffective due to a breakdown of normal maintenance and support activities (provided by contracted civilians). They would probably endure disruption of reliably delivered pay...which would tip many fence sitters into abandoning their military allegiance in short order. The government would have to resort to a wildly unpopular Draft within a year of attempting such a task.

It would be an impossible job to undertake absent the consent of the governed (an armed and truculent population with a traditional propensity for violence).

Our society functions under the same parameters that govern the Big Cat Act at a travelling circus. The lions and tigers are repetitively trained, kept well fed, and normally respond predictably to the Lion Tamer's body language and dominance bluff. Until they don't.

Good Luck.

AK_Stick
04-21-2012, 14:16
Don't sell out all of the American public! There are ex-military, police, firemen, gang members, or just people with black hearts that would stand and fight if need be. They are "hardened" in their own way. I will agree that there are some that would freak outif put under the stress of having to confront no American Idol.

The attitude that you can defeat any bunch of pansies, because we are so rough and tough, is what gets soldiers killed....Never Never under estimate anybody, especially when your on their turf! We made this mistake many times over and our soldiers died.

I'm not selling them out or underestimating them, I'm giving the American public credit. I realize that they'd be able to kill a paltry few soldiers before we systematically destroyed them.

I just understand that its an impossible scenario, and that Americans as a whole just don't have what it takes anymore. Thats why so very, very few of us serve, and so many are categorically unfit for service.


The balance of power is just too shifted to the militarys favor here in America for it to end any other way. Look at Iraq and A-stan. There is virtually no real resistance. Because every time they try to step up we smack them back down so hard it takes them months to recover. And thats with billions of outside support and top of the line weapons.

Americans have NONE of the stuff that lets other countries fight guerrilla warfare.


The end fact is that anyone who thinks that Americans would have any sort of chance or hope in hell of doing any real sort of guerrilla warfare, has zero credibility, and more than likely very little understanding of the concept they're speaking of.

AK_Stick
04-21-2012, 14:19
Just for consideration...

There are well over 11 million Vietnam, Grenada, Panama Invasion, Gulf War, Balkan Wars, Africa, & GWOT (OEF/OIF) veterans.

There are more discharged OEF/OIF veterans in society today than there are currently serving Armed Forces Members (of all branches). Many of those veterans are more experienced than the current crop of first termers who comprise the bulk of our Active Duty forces (and who themselves will also soon ETS to civilian life).

The US armed forces (Active, Guard, Reserve) maintain ~1.4 million members on any given day and total US police forces comprise about 800,000 officers (Federal, State, Local). Call it 2.3 million armed agents of the state to conduct national defense (worldwide), secure the borders, and maintain domestic law and order.

There are 313+ million people in the US. Do the math.

One enforcer/defender for every 136 citizens.

If those forces were directed to implement Unconstitutional population control measures against their own citizenry, they would have to control and secure:

1. A continental sized country with the third largest population of any nation on the planet...and almost 20,000 miles of coastal/land border (not counting Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico).

2. 209 million youths/adults (if you don't count children under 14 and elderly over 65). That still gives you one enforcer for every 90+ adult citizens capable of bearing arms.

3. A literate & cynical populace with access to information age technology, universal transport, and enough existing civilian arms to already equip every single fighting age citizen.

If not assured of societal approval for their actions, a large portion of that 2.3 million government force would 1) rebel 2) desert or 3) remain passively "neutral"...leaving a significantly smaller, less ready, and inevitably less dedicated element. This element, losing folks every day due to attrition (combat, "sick-outs", or desertion) would have to lock down every strategic node, population center, and means of production in the land. All while simultaneously providing close protection to the regime and possibly prosecuting a nation wide COIN campaign...AND while maintaining a credible deterrent against potential foreign opponents.

Entire major units (and all their associated heavy weaponry, equipment, vessels, aircraft, and electronics) would become combat ineffective due to a breakdown of normal maintenance and support activities (provided by contracted civilians). They would probably endure disruption of reliably delivered pay...which would tip many fence sitters into abandoning their military allegiance in short order. The government would have to resort to a wildly unpopular Draft within a year of attempting such a task.

It would be an impossible job to undertake absent the consent of the governed (an armed and truculent population with a traditional propensity for violence).

Our society functions under the same parameters that govern the Big Cat Act at a travelling circus. The lions and tigers are repetitively trained, kept well fed, and normally respond predictably to the Lion Tamer's body language and dominance bluff. Until they don't.

Good Luck.

And any service not during OIF/OEF, means diddly, because warfare and tech has moved so far that its out dated the way things were done, and doing things they way they used to will get you killed today.



Numbers are fine to throw out to compare simply to numbers. In the scope of this discussion, numbers are almost pointless because they don't show you the whole story.

No weapons, no support, no logistics, no C3, no way to do anything other than get yourself killed.


It really, and truly is THAT simple. You can not fight effectively, when the enemy holds all the cards. And we do.

Chindo18Z
04-21-2012, 20:17
In the scope of this discussion, numbers are almost pointless because they don't show you the whole story.

In the scope of this discussion, numbers are precisely the deciding factor.

No weapons, no support, no logistics, no C3, no way to do anything other than get yourself killed.


You are assuming that our military & police would maintain that advantage for very long. They wouldn't. Not long enough to win decisively and quickly. The force you see every day when deployed (or in training) would dissolve. The systems would collapse. The material would be unable to be rapidly delivered to where needed. Many of your very best folks would be on the other side.

It really, and truly is THAT simple. You can not fight effectively, when the enemy holds all the cards. And we do.

No. It's really not that simple. I spent my entire adult life as part of the spear tip (MOS 18Z) that conducts the warfare you are describing. I've conducted both offensive guerrilla warfare and counter guerrilla/insurgency/terror operations using all of the assets available to our nation's forces (including many you are not even aware of). It's a multi-dimensional chess board, where every move generates second and third order effects. I understand perfectly the synergistic effect we can bring to bear when everything is operating like a well oiled machine.

That is my point. The machine would throw a rod. What you are used to seeing...what you expect...would not be.

The people the military would have to fight at home would not be one-dimensional fighters (as Arab & Pashtu opponents have proven to be). It would be a whole 'nother ball game...very bloody indeed...but one whose outcome would not be pre-ordained.

For instance...your Alaska based aviation unit could be made combat incapable within a short period of time. Without ever destroying a single bird. Word. :winkie:

The entire Army & USMC (every maneuver unit) would be required simply to secure one single region of the USA (like the Pacific Coast States or New England) against a nationally active insurgency (actually multiple insurgencies). It couldn't be done. It would require a minimum of three to four divisions (permanently assigned to the field) simply to secure just the greater LA, San Diego, Long Beach region. There isn't enough ISR & CAS in the inventory to put out 10,000 fires (TICs) happening each night, coast to coast.

You assume that the American military would simply follow orders to prosecute a war against their kin. I assure you...they wouldn't. Especially the NCO and Officer leadership. Pentagon analysts are well aware of this fact. The US Revolutionary & Civil Wars are instructional when conducting human factors analysis for a theoretical internecine conflict in America. So are the military collapses of the former Yugoslavia and the the USSR.

Consider the Russian experience in the first Chechen War...a COIN operation to secure an organic Soviet State just a little more than half the size of Massachusetts. A place where there were few military arms present before the conflict. A place where a a large professional Army (~79K troops) had its ass handed to it by an insurgency comprised of...wait for it...Soviet Army veterans. I've spoken to several Russian veterans of that invasion fiasco...and it was beyond horrible for them. Much worse than Afghanistan. They expected a cakewalk too.

So sure...a bunch of Bubbas with Condor vests, shotguns, and Bushmaster ARs...standing on a modern version of Lexington Common...would be chopped to ribbons by a purpose tasked Bradley Company (or even a single AH-64).

But such a hypothetical conflict would not be fought in that manner (except by rare and stupid happenstance). And the weaponry with which the Current Big Battalions are equipped...would be redistributed. More than one side or faction would be playing with similar firepower. The military would not remain a monolithic institution, responsive to Washington. It would fragment. There would be several very separate and ably led conflicts occurring simultaneously across our nation.

The Military and Police forces of the USA crushing the entirety of their own population? Militarily...you can't get there from here.

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 00:48
Chechnya would be a excellent example, except for the fact that Americans lack everything that gave the Chechens the ability to revolt.


It simply isn't possible, it would only take one battle to completely dissolve and revert any attempt at revolt. The American populace doesn't have the will to take the kind of casualties it would take to pull it off. And because of our laws, they don't have any of the equipment it would require.

It worked in Chechnya, because they had RPG's and RKG's and mines and automatic weapons, and machine guns etc.

There's none of that here in America.

They don't need military tactics to fight the military. But they damn sure need military weapons. And there simply aren't enough in civilian hands in all of America to amount to a single effective battle against the military.

TangoFoxtrot
04-22-2012, 06:43
I'm not selling them out or underestimating them, I'm giving the American public credit. I realize that they'd be able to kill a paltry few soldiers before we systematically destroyed them.

I just understand that its an impossible scenario, and that Americans as a whole just don't have what it takes anymore. Thats why so very, very few of us serve, and so many are categorically unfit for service.


The balance of power is just too shifted to the militarys favor here in America for it to end any other way. Look at Iraq and A-stan. There is virtually no real resistance. Because every time they try to step up we smack them back down so hard it takes them months to recover. And thats with billions of outside support and top of the line weapons.

Americans have NONE of the stuff that lets other countries fight guerrilla warfare.


The end fact is that anyone who thinks that Americans would have any sort of chance or hope in hell of doing any real sort of guerrilla warfare, has zero credibility, and more than likely very little understanding of the concept they're speaking of.

WOW I don't know what kind of meds they give to soldiers now, but I wish they had them when I served. You need a reality check. Our soldiers are not supermen or invinceable, their just human beings like the rest of us weak civilians:upeyes: Do you honestly believe our soldiers for the are going to take part in the systematic killing of fellow americans ..Hell no this is not Syria. Oh I get it now, your an officer, and thinking like one. An NCO would have figured this out by now:tongueout:

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 13:42
WOW I don't know what kind of meds they give to soldiers now, but I wish they had them when I served. You need a reality check. Our soldiers are not supermen or invinceable, their just human beings like the rest of us weak civilians:upeyes: Do you honestly believe our soldiers for the are going to take part in the systematic killing of fellow americans ..Hell no this is not Syria. Oh I get it now, your an officer, and thinking like one. An NCO would have figured this out by now:tongueout:



You're absolutely right, soldiers are just human beings.


With training, support, and equipment to carry out a fight. Which in America, has been slowly taken away from the civilians and they've been slowly lured onto the gov't dole so that we've gotten to the point that they're dependent upon the fed gov.

Chindo18Z
04-22-2012, 13:53
It worked in Chechnya, because they had RPG's and RKG's and mines and automatic weapons, and machine guns etc.

No, they actually didn't (not initially). Nor is it common for the populace to be initially armed with military grade hardware at the outset of any revolution or insurgency. But you'd be amazed to see how quickly that paradigm changes in places that go down the tubes. Especially in Police States or nascent Police States. Places where the common man is normally forbidden access to arms. There are LOTS of military weapons government stockpiled across the land. They are only relatively secured and barely defended. The authorities rely upon society accepting rule of law to ensure that they remain undisturbed. As soon as the population reaches for arms...that concept goes out the window...and it's too late for the powers that be to secure those arms (many of which are in transit, factories, or warehouse storage).

Every military weapon that the formerly North-Korean-Clone state of Bulgaria possessed...was looted within a week of that nation's financial collapse. Boris Badenov and his entire police-state apparatus were unable to keep the population from cracking open every military and police armory in the land. Small children were selling AKs & RPGs off the back of little red wagons within days...for about $5 a pop. Everyone formerly unarmed (total gun control) GOT armed within days of the national collapse.

In the event of an emergency in America (and unlike almost anywhere else on Planet Earth), most of the adult population could turn out on the street with some sort of firearm almost immediately. Looting of Police and military Reserve/Guard armories would follow as a matter of course in response to a perceived WORL situation or an emergent 19 April 1775 event.

Many who work at those locations or have controlled access would actually be complicit in the "theft" of the peoples arms...by the people. Some of that would even happen on occasional Active Duty installations...where certain leaders would have made an early and conscious decision to take a side against the status quo. That delivery of Javelins or artillery munitions that was being railed or trucked from factory to depot or base? Hmmm...looks like it got lost or hi-jacked somewhere along the way...and the driver disappeared. All the demolitions resident at the local mine? Gone. Driven off.

The American Revolution was literally touched off by British forces attempting to preemptively secure the contents of "Guard" armories...in anticipation of near-term hostilities with Colonial forces. They were a day late and a dollar (pound) short.

There's none of that here in America. There's a lot of that here in America. And all of it is easily pick-able low hanging fruit. I promise you this is true.

A popular insurgency inside the USA would become militarily well armed as a matter of course (just as with movements found in every other nation). These type of conflicts (and the associated force structure) don't spring into being fully formed, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus...they ferment. There is a buildup. Main Force guerrilla units are encountered only later in the doctrinal stages of an Unconventional Warfare campaign. And mainly on ground and times of their choosing. The stupid, the cannon fodder...they die early. What remains becomes the nucleus of your future Guerrilla army...carefully husbanded, nurtured, trained, and equipped. It is only deliberately exposed to danger when circumstances favor victory and overwhelming likelihood of localized success.

In an earlier post, you were very right about outside nations shipping arms to CONUS. They would. We have lots of enemies who would gladly feed and support the dissolution of American might by supporting a homegrown revolution. Using the same clandestine channels that smuggle people and narcotics today, plus newly established maritime/aerial landing zones. Initially small arms, explosives, anti-armor launchers, and light indirect fire systems (mortars and rockets). Later, surface to air weapons, communications systems, signal intercept gear, and night vision equipment.

A successful (winning) insurgency requires the following ingredients. I'll describe them in hypothetical terms using the USA as the battlespace (assuming an imaginary national insurgency):

1. Support of the Populace. Not necessarily active support...just more sympathy and support than the government gets. The insurgents swim in an ocean that is the nation's population...and usually unmolested by that populace. Hearts and Minds. Usually the government is already hated and detested...otherwise, there would be no insurgency. This is why the self-declared US "revolutionaries" of the 60's and 70's fell flat on their faces. Americans weren't buying what they were selling...and the populace supported the efforts of law enforcement to roll those idiots up.

2. Sanctuary. External or Internal. The geographic circumstances presented by North America would support both. Safe Haven (to various degrees) for insurgency members and their logistics/training support. Places where government forces are generally denied freedom of movement or action. Could be Mexico. Could be Canada. (Either nation's sanctity enforced by a convenient UN political/military coalition of outside nations!) Could be the entire upper Mid-West. Or the metropolitan area of an entire large US city. Or the Rockies. Or the Everglades. Or the entire Mississippi Delta. Or Alaska. Or the entirety of Appalachia and the Adirondacks. Or the coastal tidewaters. Or the Sierras. Or the Great American South-Western Desert. Or the Grain Belt. Or North Korea. Or many parts of the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Or Boston. Get the idea?

The government's forces would routinely conduct largely telegraphed major sweep operations, using less than 1/3 of their available forces (1/3 always defending bases, main supply arteries, and centers of gravity; 1/3 not available due to unavoidable admin requirements like sleep, leave, off duty, refit, desertion, training, etc.). These areas would be declared pacified and a few trophy insurgent racks displayed for the cameras. 95% of insurgent forces would go to ground and avoid a stand up fight. The government's sweeping force would eventually leave and the insurgents would flow right back in.

Local and State LEOs would be strangely ineffective in delivering effective support to military operations...since they would have already been brought to heel by demonstrable lethal threat to their families, properties, and persons (or be insurgents themselves). The Insurgent Shadow Government would never miss a beat and continue to extract tax revenue, logistic support, and intelligence from the population.

Conventionally trained American (and Russian) generals LOVE large unit hammer anvil / seize and "hold" operations. Even today, Flail-O-Ramas like Vietnam's Operation JUNCTION CITY are routinely repeated in places like Afghanistan (and formerly in Iraq). :whistling:

US ground forces would remain primarily city and road bound. For how long (and to what effect) could you saddle a BCT with the job of "pacifying" the entirety of western Kansas and eastern Colorado?

UAVs would provide an initial advantage to the government...until the operators and maintenance techs were assassinated at home, or ambushed in their daily escorted work convoys, or finally forced to desert under threat of family kidnapping or assassination. That happening at the same time that the sole air-frame production plant in California burns to the ground. And the operating soft ware goes mysteriously buggy. Or the down link gets hacked by some really bright IT gringos working against the government.

3. Sponsor/s. We have many enemy (or just annoyed) nation states who would love to see the US get its comeuppance. I'm sure that everyone can think of a few. For a relatively cheap investment in war material, financing, & insurgent training...they could keep this nation mired in its own internal troubles for years. Don't think they wouldn't.

And don't think that the most patriotic, flag waving, Constitutional believers (American guerrillas) wouldn't accept that foreign military, financial, and political aid. The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend...

Keeping us militarily occupied with contemplating our own internal navel would allow our competitors to shape the rest of the world to their liking. Things like settling long-standing territorial disputes (e.g., Taiwan) or exerting future control over exploratory petroleum drilling and delivery routes. They would have freedom to do these things due to a vacuum in overseas deployed US military strength. Those forces would (in the main) be required at home.

4. Direct or Passive Support of just 2% of the Adult Population. This is a doctrinal UW equation (taught to Army Special Forces) that says an insurgency can continue indefinitely with just that percentage of support by the population.

About 2 million total folks required from coast to coast in the USA. Not fighters...just people willing to provide some sort of support: provide lookouts, run messages, just look the other way, provide safe houses, support logistics networks, provide food/fuel/medical, distribute propaganda, leave a gate or door unlocked, conduct minor sabotage or subversion, compromise government data, provide purloined documents/ID from within issuing offices, etc. Just about the same ratio of support that street gangs use to run narcotics and control their neighborhood turf.

Just normal everyday UW stuff. Mostly the folks that comprise your Auxiliary. The Tail. The Teeth are found in the Underground and the Guerrilla Army. Not many folks required for either of those until later in the struggle. Possibly not until years later. Time is always on the side of the insurgency as long as they do not alienate the population.

The above scenario and hypothetical points are used to illustrate the general parameters of an Unconventional War. Our country is still the longest standing free republic in recorded human history (although constitutionally frayed). But like all great nations, we are always closer to disaster than we might think.

An insurgency in the USA would ultimately require only one thing...for the American people to reach a tipping point and decide to support such. After that, geography, demographics, and the currently standing military equation would actually support an eventual insurgent victory.

It had better damn well never happen. What people ask for is not necessarily what they get. Historically, dictatorships usually supplant collapsed democracies. Insurgents have a nasty habit of becoming ruthless autocrats-in-waiting. They've already gotten past the "Ends Justifies the Means" phase during the war, and are happy to continue applying that calculus to running the country (after they prevail against the old regime). Be careful of what you wish for.

I'd prefer to see the country vote its way out of poor leadership and policies. In any election year. It ain't perfect by a long shot...but America is so much better than everywhere else I've seen. I'd like to keep it that way.

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 14:26
And again, you miss the big picture.


Big brother only has to shut off the services, or slow them down and blame them on the "guerrilla" factions actions, and this country would literally eat its own revolutionists.


We've spent close to a hundred years pacifying the civilian population, and getting them hooked to gov't progams they hardly ever get back off of.

They've created a great system, and it ties the populace to it. So the majority of Americans are going to help, even if unwittingly counter anything the "insurgents" could hope to win.

You can't win a guerrilla war when it means turning the populace against you. And unless they have a plan for dealing with the millions of entitlement bound citizens, all the Gov't would have to do is slowly pull back entitlement programs, and watch the country literally eat itself. Then once the fight was over, start them back up, and claim to be the good guys.

Chindo18Z
04-22-2012, 14:57
Rubbish. The situation you describe would work in the insurgency's favor. Greatly in their favor. Were I an insurgent, I'd want that situation to occur. It would make my job so much easier. Probably shorten my victory timetable by years.

Do continue.

We've spent close to a hundred years pacifying the civilian population, and getting them hooked to gov't progams they hardly ever get back off of.

No. Arguably only since LBJ's Great Society kicked off in 1965. About 46 years. Which is still too long (and you make a valid point).

BTW: I hope you are not serious about all this indoctrinated tribal military "we" stuff (with ego-centric references to US troops killing their own citizens). Grow up. Perhaps review and think deeply about your oath of enlistment...if that means anything to you:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me. (or So help me God)"

TangoFoxtrot
04-22-2012, 15:35
You're absolutely right, soldiers are just human beings.


With training, support, and equipment to carry out a fight. Which in America, has been slowly taken away from the civilians and they've been slowly lured onto the gov't dole so that we've gotten to the point that they're dependent upon the fed gov.

This sounds more like an extremist right wing rant than a logical perception of reality.:rofl:So your saying all americans are strickly dependant on the federal government and could not fight against an opposing force?

TangoFoxtrot
04-22-2012, 15:39
Rubbish. The situation you describe would work in the insurgency's favor. Greatly in their favor. Were I an insurgent, I'd want that situation to occur. It would make my job so much easier. Probably shorten my victory timetable by years.

Do continue.



No. Arguably only since LBJ's Great Society kicked off in 1965. About 46 years.

BTW: I hope you are not serious about all this indoctrinated tribal military "we" stuff (with ego-centric references to US troops killing their own citizens). Grow up. Perhaps review and think deeply about your oath of enlistment...if that means anything to you:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me. (or So help me God)"

Well stated! I think AK Stick is saying soldiers are going to commit unlawful orders after they put on their capes and "S" on their chests. No soldiers I ever served would even think of slaughtering their own people. (Well maybe one). crazies).

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 16:22
Well stated! I think AK Stick is saying soldiers are going to commit unlawful orders after they put on their capes and "S" on their chests. No soldiers I ever served would even think of slaughtering their own people. (Well maybe one). crazies).

:upeyes:

Now where did I ever say that?




Its unfortunate you didn't learn a bit more reality in your tour, too bad you never got outside the wire.

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 16:35
Rubbish. The situation you describe would work in the insurgency's favor. Greatly in their favor. Were I an insurgent, I'd want that situation to occur. It would make my job so much easier. Probably shorten my victory timetable by years.

Perhaps in any other country, but not in America. Our way of life has seen to it.

Its exactly what we get for being so well protected and insulated from anything over the years. Without gov't subsidy, our whole nation would wither on the vine.



BTW: I hope you are not serious about all this indoctrinated tribal military "we" stuff (with ego-centric references to US troops killing their own citizens). Grow up. Perhaps review and think deeply about your oath of enlistment...if that means anything to you:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me. (or So help me God)"

You might want to read that real closely and then take a minute to understand it. There's a line about enemies foreign and domestic you might need to ponder.

Anyone attempting to overthrow the US Gov't would fit that bill very well. And I know a whole slew of patriotic soldiers who've spent a long time fighting for her abroad who wouldn't think twice about defending her here.

If you think that US soldiers wouldn't kill US citizens attempting to overthrow or destroy the gov't, than I don't know what to tell you. History is chalk full of examples of exactly that happening.

Now would we see a holocaust like the 30-40's era germany? No. But I have absolutely no doubt that if some guerrilla faction was attempting to overthrow the Gov't or sabotage federal facilities, that US troops would have no issues with using force to stop/arrest/kill them.

Chindo18Z
04-22-2012, 17:07
There's a line about enemies foreign and domestic you might need to ponder.

Look up the term Lawful Order. Then read the Officer Oath (which differs from yours). Then ask yourself if you possess wisdom, maturity, and sound judgment.

And I know a whole slew of patriotic soldiers who've spent a long time fighting for her abroad who wouldn't think twice about defending her here.

As do I. I'm one of them. Unfortunately for you, sounds like we'd be on opposite sides.

You are obviously the baddest 15T to stride the earth. :upeyes:

AK_Stick
04-22-2012, 20:48
Look up the term Lawful Order. Then read the Officer Oath (which differs from yours). Then ask yourself if you possess wisdom, maturity, and sound judgment.



As do I. I'm one of them. Unfortunately for you, sounds like we'd be on opposite sides.

You are obviously the baddest 15T to stride the earth. :upeyes:


I'm unfortunate because I realize that sometimes the Gov't is not the bad guy, and sometimes the civilian population isn't the oppressed good guys? I mean its not like we haven't used SF and Psy ops to create drama where we wanted to, and it was always in the best interest of the civilian population :rofl:

It was just a discussion, with no background information given to what/why the scenario had come to what it did. I've made no statements about what I would do personally, or anyone personally and only talked in generalitys, and infact prefaced the whole "us" and "them" statements with that.


But hey, feel free to try and talk crap because I'm not a 11 or 18 series MOS. Next time one of your buddies gets shot up and that med bird comes to get him, or you get dropped off at an LZ/supported by one of those 160th CE's remember we all do our part. My part just isn't kicking in doors and face shooting bad guys at point blank range. Its slinging along at 100 ft pulling wounded guys out of the battle, and getting supplies, and guys like you into it.

blkt2
04-22-2012, 21:14
It worked in Chechnya, because they had RPG's and RKG's and mines and automatic weapons, and machine guns etc.

There's none of that here in America.



You obviously don't know any Bandidos or live near any military post in TX.

Chindo18Z
04-25-2012, 18:17
AK_Stick and I are cool. We are just cutting the same trail from different directions.

The terms of the discussion weren't specified in detail by emt1581. The point/counterpoint just kind of evolved. AK_Stick is talking about going after legitimate enemies of the nation (in the moral and legal sense). Terrorists, invaders, militarily organized criminals. I would too.

AK_Stick is exactly right: Troops will follow lawful orders in normal times, especially to protect the citizenry. Once the firing starts, they will do what they have to do without hesitation.

There has been occasional unfortunate precedent for questionable troop use against citizens at home (which is why we have formal laws to constrain that misuse):

The 1932 Bonus Army crushed by Douglas MacArthur (and a younger George Patton) in Washington D.C.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Or Kent State. Or Waco.

But, if we ever suffer the tragedy of an attempted Beslan-type School Massacre by organized terrorists, the Good Guys will do what is required. It's what they get paid to do.

A localized paramilitary group making a successful stand against a modern US military or LEO outfit...ain't hardly got a chance. Read up on the history of the Symbionese Liberation Army in this country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army

Today, Law Enforcement & Military response against such a threat is exponentially superior to that available back in the '70s. Resisting a well supported assault force is tantamount to suicide these days...unless you have a very well orchestrated plan for short term survival and escape. Showing your fangs to a full up SWAT team or attempting to defend against an attacking Infantry unit is a pretty futile gesture (in most cases). The short lesson is: Don't ever play defense by irrevocably standing your ground against trained troops. You'll lose.

I've been approaching the discussion from the other direction...where the government itself assumes illegal dictatorial powers and a significant portion of the population objects to that illegality (abrogation of the US Constitution, political gelding of one or more branches of government, etc.). In other words, when the government goes criminally rogue.

IMHO, if a sizable portion (2% or more) of the entire citizenry ever decides to avail themselves of the last box (soap, ballot, cartridge)...it's a different ballgame...because the military would tear itself apart (internal loyalty strife) and lose significant capability and efficiencies. What remained of the force would no longer enjoy the popular support of the people. An existential death spiral for a military organization as large as ours. And there isn't enough currently existing force capacity to quell all events... if those events erupted essentially everywhere and over a short period of time.

BTW: I'd gladly accept an exfil from my Aviator brother AK_Stick...anytime. :cool:

lawman800
04-25-2012, 20:40
Someone once brought up a very good point during a conversation with me. Went something like this......"For there to be a revolution (Guerrilla war) in America the participants would have to have ABSOLUTELY nothing left to lose. That would include no house, no ties be it family or friends not already a part of the revolution. No money, at least no bank account in their name. Things like these will all be lost as soon as the authorities discover the identity of those fighting.

Just seemed like a very valid point to me. Maybe we will suffer from an insurgency of the recipient and entitled class.

Caveat... people who are on the government dole with EVERYTHING to lose if government threatens to take their stuff away or says if you don't take against the haves, then you lose out... you will see them mobilize in huge numbers and then we would be the ones fighting their "insurgency" against those of us in private homes.

UneasyRider
04-25-2012, 21:39
Just as a side note, the government IS going to run out of people who will take our money and that is a game changer. Something about empty stores that drives people to madness.

EMT - If you are in place with your family trying to squeeze a living out of the earth in the PAW you are screwed my friend. There are some great technologies but they won't keep you alive, only a large organized group will stand a chance if anyone knows where you are and wants what you have.

lawman800
04-25-2012, 21:42
Just as a side note, the government IS going to run out of people who will take our money and that is a game changer. Something about empty stores that drives people to madness.

Actually, the government is going to run out of people who have anything left to take if they keep this socialist class warfare nonsense going.

Bolster
04-26-2012, 00:10
Actually, the government is going to run out of people who have anything left to take if they keep this socialist class warfare nonsense going.

The government is going to run out of wealthy people (ie, people who make jobs for other people) to villify. Saw an interesting graphic in the WSJ, showing a dramatic and large uptick in expatriates since 2008. Most of them are the very wealthy.

Let's see, what horrid thing happened in 2008 that would cause 400% more people to want to renounce US citizenship? Hmm, hmm.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP178A_mcgur_NS_20120423175103.jpg

lawman800
04-26-2012, 00:12
More than a few people I know are planning retirements overseas, including yours truly. If it gets any worse, I might even exfil before retirement if I can get my finances in order.

Drjones
04-26-2012, 19:37
I think we can agree that taking on the US Military is....dangerous at best...

What if one were to take a page from Unintended Consequences and instead target the thugs who would be commanding a war against the "guerillas" - the electeds themselves?

How hard would soldiers fight under a dead general? What orders would a general take from a dead senator?

RMTactical
04-26-2012, 20:13
Bottom line is this, you cannot kill an idea unless you are willing to fight it forever or those you are fighting are soft.

We didnt win in Vietnam because we didn't have the stomach to stick it out. Our kill/death ratio was very good, but the Vietnamese were fine with their losses.

We havent won the drug war because it will never end.

The WOT will never end.

No amount of technology will win any of these battles ultimately. They help, and they limit casualties on our side, but they don't win the war in and of themselves.

The only thing that wins a war, ultimately, is the will to win and fight to the last man. Even if they kill every last man, they create more enemies by doing so. It's never ending.

You could say we won WWII because of technology I guess, but we also broke their spirits in the end... The losses they sustained from two nuclear bombs along with the momentum of the war was more than they were willing to accept. We had a lot to fight for in that war because we had a lot to lose as well.

I'm just rambling...

I think our military will fight with us ultimately if/when the SHTF. I fear foreign enemies being aided by traitors in our country more than I fear the US military itself. Too many patriots in our military IMO.

RMTactical
04-26-2012, 20:20
Actually, the government is going to run out of people who have anything left to take if they keep this socialist class warfare nonsense going.

They don't want your money as much as they want your blind allegiance, but they will take both.

lawman800
04-26-2012, 23:22
They don't want your money as much as they want your blind allegiance, but they will take both.

Well, they get blind allegiance because they took all your money and you are beholden to them for your survival.

4TS&W
04-27-2012, 00:27
This thread is both disturbing and wonderful at the same time.

That citizen renouncing chart above is VERY disturbing though.. couple that with a net loss of illegal Mexicans, and it starts to look like rats deserting a sinking ship.. or canaries dying in the mineshaft..