On 09/22/2016 05:52 PM, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 03:12:11AM -0000, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
>> They were bloody well fed anti tank and anti aircraft rpgs and the like
>> by the USA - that's how they took down the USSR occupation.
>>> Then took their AK47's and repelled NATO.
>> Your simplification may be useful to inspire, but more research by the
>> wanna be AK47 wielder is most definitely required!
> You really might want to look into this yourself.
> Western military analysts tend to see the introduction of the Stinger
> missles as the "turning point" in the war.
> Russian analysts see the decision much differently. Gorbachev had ordered
> the scale-down, and withdrawal a full year before the Afghans fired their
> first Stinger.
> And of course, no one was feeding them artillery during the invasion by NATO.
> But, in a way, you're right. It wasn't REALLY the rifle's that let them
> win. It was the mountains.

Yes, it was the desolate mountains. Plus the fact that decades of war
had pounded everything so thoroughly.

> Nevertheless, given the proper conditions and terrain it is not difficult
> to mitigate tanks and aircraft. It is not difficult to arrange a situation
> where an army needs to walk in, on foot.
> And once you get them to that point, it's all about the rifles.
> I don't know exactly what the terrain is like in some of the U.S. mountain
> areas, but I'm sure there are suitable areas. But it doesn't even matter.
> If you have the bodies? Grab rifles, walk into New York and D.C., and
> squat them. Tanks and aircraft are useless. They aren't going to use
> artillery on Manhattan or D.C. Three thousand or so "tourists" show up
> over the course of 6-8 months in each city. There are abandoned subway
> tunnels in NY might get overlooked. You'd need access to some hardware to
> break in, but if you can manage something like this, that is trivial.
> There may be something similar in DC.

Right. US military have trained heavily for this scenario, however.

> The problem isn't that artillery and aircraft are too difficult to avoid,
> and mitigate. Its that the people are too weak. Big difference.

Well, too weak or not, far too few of them want freedom badly enough.

> And in any civil war scenario, its quite likely you'll gain anti-aircraft
> missles, artillery, etc, very early. It is always likely that you'll
> inspire at least a partial military coup.

Yep, go for those National Guard armories :)

>> always try to infiltrate, demonstrate and thereafter express authority,
>> and finally cause your insurrection to launch waay too early, well
>> before you have any chance of succeeding.

That does seem to be a favorite tactic. But even if you take down the
national government, it's police forces and National Guard units that
would become feudal overlords. So armed insurrection seems pointless.

> I don't know the whole story, but I read awhile back about some situation
> or another in the States where militias had a stand off with the Federal
> government, and the government stood down?
> If this is true, its a serious indication that the United States
> government is greatly weakening. Considering its importance to the west,
> generally, its good news all around.

Wishful thinking.

Reply via email to