Preppers will die in WROL

[DADDYO]

Originally Posted by Fenrell

In the countryside, probably true. It would be considerably easier in the cities though because they aren't going to be calling airstrikes or artillery barrages on their own neighborhoods (and supporters). In my opinion that is where the majority of any fighting would actually take place. In the scenario being envisioned, it would be the corrupt politicians and their government organs being targeted first by a resistance, and those things tend to be in the cities.

I think the current mess in Syria is probably a reasonable facsimile of what could happen here if things devolve to outright rebellion. Most of the action is in and around the cities and bases, not out in the boonies where the full might of a military can be brought to bear without real consequence to the government.

You are assuming that those in power will follow the same patter of not attacking targets for fear of collateral damage. I'm saying that in a fight for there (those in power here) lives, they would do just that without worry. The theory is that they have nothing to loose by harming "innocents" anyway. At this point if they don't do it they will lose. If they do it they may win. Its a no brainer.

Personally, I have no doubt that the current administration will do ANYTHING to maintain power. I believe that they have greater concern for innocent Muslims abroad than our own civilians here.

[Fenrell]

Originally Posted by DADDYO

You are assuming that those in power will follow the same patter of not attacking targets for fear of collateral damage. I'm saying that in a fight for there (those in power here) lives, they would do just that without worry. The theory is that they have nothing to loose by harming "innocents" anyway. At this point if they don't do it they will lose. If they do it they may win. Its a no brainer.

Personally, I have no doubt that the current administration will do ANYTHING to maintain power. I believe that they have greater concern for innocent Muslims abroad than our own civilians here.

That is correct, I am making the assumption that TPTB will need to keep the good will of at least a major chunk of the American people, and that means at least maintaining the veneer of lawful consensual governance. If they ignore that, they would be quickly removed from power because their own troops would immediately revolt. They know this because the US military is not the political lapdog of the ruling party, at least not yet. If anything, it leans the opposite direction. Remember, it is the families of the soldiers and police they would be relying on who would make up that collateral damage in indiscriminate shelling or bombing. They couldn't risk alienating their own muscle.

I have zero worries about foreign troops being brought in to supplant US forces for a crackdown. For one, that alone would trigger a bigger revolt with the US military leading the way. Secondly, foreign troops have no dog in this fight at all. Their morale would be almost nil, their local support would be even less and they would be sitting ducks with their supply lines stretching across an ocean. Not to mention there just aren't enough of them to even dream about controlling a country the size of the US. More importantly, if they were brought here despite all that, they would no longer be available to keep order in their own countries. I don't see China or Russia risking losing control of their own countries just to take massive casualties in the US. Finally, the majority of troops the UN could pull together from other sources have proven time and time again to be inept, often poorly trained and generally useless. They hunker down or slink away at the first sign of real resistance, and there would be very real resistance here.

The current administration only has backing as long as it at least follows the semblance of law. I predict they would be the recipients of a military coup if they tried the indiscriminate strong-arm tactics you are talking about. Certainly they would lose all pretense of legitimate government even amongst their own current supporters.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Fenrell

... I am making the assumption that TPTB will need to keep the good will of at least a major chunk of the American people, and that means at least maintaining the veneer of lawful consensual governance.
[snip]
The current administration only has backing as long as it at least follows the semblance of law. ... Certainly they would lose all pretense of legitimate government even amongst their own current supporters.

Though that is a logical conclusion, most Americans are clueless with regard to law. I would not be surprised if most lawyers are clueless, as well.

What fact supports such a bizarre claim?

Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.

In candid conversations with judges and lawyers, they tend to stand mute when questioned on various topics about the emergency, the lack of lawful money, and the imposition of "voluntary" national socialism.

In other words, the "CON" is on. And the sheeple haven't enough sense to get out of the shearing line.

[Fenrell]

There is a pretty big difference between those type of rights erosion and outright slaughter of civilians. Even the most oblivious Obama-phile would sit up and take notice when his apartment block is getting shelled by "government forces" in response to a shooter or two.

The government operates under limits, even one as slimy as our current government. Assad type tactics just won't fly here, at least not yet.

[DADDYO]

Fighting will equal death or arrest. When you fire a shot and the tanks move in surround the area and arrest everyone, tear apart & locate weapons & ammo, and kill anyone who resists. Soon all fighters will be in jail or dead.

Whoever told you that you will be allowed to fire at the rouge government forces and then just blend into the population without punishment is just crazy. The same forces you say will object to killing civilians will become hardened as their friends and brother soldiers fall dead to your tactics.

Its not gonna be as easy as folks think.

[Fenrell]

Originally Posted by DADDYO

Its not gonna be as easy as folks think.

That's probably true, but neither would it be as futile as you imply. Lots of insurgencies have run for years and years, precisely because the government tactics you describe only increase overall resistance to the regime, not stifle it.

There aren't enough tanks, APC's, etc. in existence to surround an area every time someone takes a potshot. There aren't enough troops to do it either. If they want a particular shooter really bad, then yes they could try that. But when it happens on a nearly daily basis in every city in the country, forget about it. Clever guerrillas would even use the predictable response to a shooter to set ambushes with IEDs or what have you, thereby drastically increasing the casualty rate of the responding military force.

[PalmettoTree]

Our problem is not going to be out gunned but ignorance. Too many of us pick someone we do not like or disagree with and brand their strategy as stupid.

The difference between a wise man and a fool is a wise man will learn from a fool.

Too many of you are fools.

[manisonenmi]

and the band played on....why are we still on this thread. the last 90% of the posts don't even address the original post, which IMHO was much to do about nothing, since the majority of the people know that combat is not pretty and that even the best prepared person has a good possibility of being shot dead in combat. Can we just close this one out?

[Horsecreeker]

Originally Posted by manisonenmi

and the band played on....why are we still on this thread. the last 90% of the posts don't even address the original post, which IMHO was much to do about nothing, since the majority of the people know that combat is not pretty and that even the best prepared person has a good possibility of being shot dead in combat. Can we just close this one out?

Done, cut!.. Thanks ladies, goodnight. Go home. It's over!

[DADDYO]

Originally Posted by Fenrell

That's probably true, but neither would it be as futile as you imply. Lots of insurgencies have run for years and years, precisely because the government tactics you describe only increase overall resistance to the regime, not stifle it.

There aren't enough tanks, APC's, etc. in existence to surround an area every time someone takes a potshot. There aren't enough troops to do it either. If they want a particular shooter really bad, then yes they could try that. But when it happens on a nearly daily basis in every city in the country, forget about it. Clever guerrillas would even use the predictable response to a shooter to set ambushes with IEDs or what have you, thereby drastically increasing the casualty rate of the responding military force.

History has proved you correct about the many insurgencies that have run for years. The untold stat is the casualty rate among insurgents. From Afghanistan to Vietnam the ratios are 10 to 1 and up. Not futile of course but very painful.

[DADDYO]

Originally Posted by manisonenmi

and the band played on....why are we still on this thread. the last 90% of the posts don't even address the original post, which IMHO was much to do about nothing, since the majority of the people know that combat is not pretty and that even the best prepared person has a good possibility of being shot dead in combat. Can we just close this one out?

Its always struck me as odd as to why some feel a duty to end a thread that they no longer enjoy. I'm having a discussion with a fellow member. If the thread is no longer something you wish to follow by all means stop following.

[Fenrell]

Originally Posted by DADDYO

History has proved you correct about the many insurgencies that have run for years. The untold stat is the casualty rate among insurgents. From Afghanistan to Vietnam the ratios are 10 to 1 and up. Not futile of course but very painful.

Yeah, no one is claiming an insurgency is risk free. All types of war are dangerous, but when you are so badly overmatched guerrilla warfare is the only option that has any chance of success. It is important to remember though that the lopsided casualty ratio usually occurs because sooner or later the guerrillas get cocky and try to "mass up" and take on the military toe to toe. That is what happened in Vietnam (Tet offensive as an example), both wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq. That is where the guerrillas take their badly lopsided casualties (that and a brainwashed desire for martyrdom in the case of the muslims), and is something to be avoided. Overconfidence kills guerrillas even faster than it does traditional militaries.

[Beatupoldcop]

Originally Posted by outthere07

Muscle memory definately is important because many times survival will boil down to reflex not thought process, seconds vs. minutes.

So true. When my employing department offered us the choice of 9mm, I stayed with my S&W Model 19 that I carried for 14 years previously.
Of course, I never turn down a chance to practice with a 9mm, but my go to gun is still a revolver. Thouh I am reconsidering after reading Ferfals thoughts concerning spray and pray and reloading.

[manisonenmi]

Originally Posted by DADDYO

Its always struck me as odd as to why some feel a duty to end a thread that they no longer enjoy. I'm having a discussion with a fellow member. If the thread is no longer something you wish to follow by all means stop following.

yes that is ok but the problem is that the last 15 pages of posts have nothing to do with the issue raised by the OP

[ralfy]

Staxx nails it.

In addition, defense and evading combat is only part of survival. In the long term, much of survival will involve localization, working with small communities, and learning skills needed for sustainability.

Some more points should be considered in light of that:

I recall one reporter who had a lot of experience in war zones writing that of all groups that he encountered in urban and some rural areas, then ones that dominated were criminals.

There was another video featuring unnamed personalities sharing how they would form groups and use firearms to take away provisions from others. I recall one survivalist reacting and saying that in the long run members of such gangs will turn on each other. Those that they victimize and form groups will be more cohesive and will eventually outlast them.

One final article states that what will affect everyone in the long run is the collapse of a "just-in-time" system needed to make not just food, fuel, and medicine available, but even ammo needed for firearms. With that, provisions will not last, together with fancy survival gear. Given that, skills needed to grow food, medicine, etc., will be critical.

[DADDYO]

Originally Posted by manisonenmi

yes that is ok but the problem is that the last 15 pages of posts have nothing to do with the issue raised by the OP

Understandable however most threads evolve. Especially on survival sites. They all tend to move toward survival issues within the threads topic. Just like this one.

I see it all the time in threads I don't post responses to. Still I just avoid them when I don't care for the direction.