Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sagar
10 two person teams...of good shooter's could paralyze this country.

Geesh dude....two morons wrecked havoc on a community...a few years ago.

331 posted on 08/09/2012 12:49:27 PM PDT by Osage Orange ("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Osage Orange; ctdonath2; rollo tomasi; DesertRhino; ChildOfThe60s; Travis McGee; 2ndDivisionVet
Overall, here are 3 main arguments against my notion that the insurgency will fail against the US military.

1. US cannot even win against the Islamist insurgents in over 10 years of fighting.

Who says that US is not winning against the Islamist insurgents? In fact, US has killed them by hundrends of thousands and have weakened them considerably. The only reason the fighting is continuing, apart from the fact that they keep coming from non-fight-zones such as Saudi Arabia, is that US is really benefiting from the managed-scale insurgencies -- this is the war of the future, so honing the skills ain't bad at all. A decade of experience in fighting urban insurgency will compliment tremendous air and naval superiority of the US military.

2. Even those 2 Washington DC shooters paralyzed the entire region, so imagine the terror unleashed by thousands of insurgents.

The population might have been paralyzed, but the military will not be. In fact, a paralyzed population will make things easier for the military to wipe out the insurgents. The paralyzed population will follow curfews, so insurgents will be much easier to locate using thermal/infrared imagery.

3. The military supply chain will be severely disrupted by armed uprising, thus preventing the military from mobilizing effectively.

Although the military supply chain will be severely disrupted, the civilian supply chain will be even more so! Without wal-marts stocked in every town, the docile population will flee to the urban areas for basic sustenance. Those with the supplies are survivalists and those are in remote areas. THe military can carpet bomb those areas, leaving the survivalists dead in their dungeons.

I think one of the better arguments against sustained insurgency is that half of the aged insurgent population will be dead before the nightfall after an insurgency. The aged folks will be the brains behind insurgency (ala mullahs), but they are kept alive by daily doses of medical cocktails. A week/month/year after the insurgency, no more medicine to keep them viable.

And beside all of the speculation, all we have to do is look at China to see how armed insurgency can be kept under total control if the military is powerful enough. Look at West China where restive population of Muslims are kept under complete control by the Chinese military. The US military has even more resources to do it.

370 posted on 08/09/2012 7:45:03 PM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson