I've meant to ask this question before but didn't get around to it, so, under what circumstances is the US military going to go after US citizens and start nuking farm houses? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see this as being very likely.
I've meant to ask this question before but didn't get around to it, so, under what circumstances is the US military going to go after US citizens and start nuking farm houses? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see this as being very likely.
It isn't very likely, remember the whole thing was a tongue in cheek recommendation. The real advice was to protect your financial status. The rest is just drift from the real topic which happened because I am a rascal and I encouraged it.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
Well, at least you admit it.Originally Posted by old Grump
It is just some fuzzy feeling as it will never happen. If it did; then our military would become two; as each would view the other as a traitor so they wouldn't like each other much. AFA as us fighting our military; supposedly the VC did an excellent job until they became extinct after the 68 Tet. Somehow extinction doesn't sound like they did such an excellent job..
Our danger lays in illegals who won't want to leave and terrorists who want to die.
As far as some circumstances?? As our borders are so porous millions of illegals walked in; bin laden could have 50,000 armed fighters here. I certainly would if I was him. If La Raza fields 100,000 armed illegals. There are plenty of circumstances.
Infantry digs a fighting positions when then "spend the night."
If they stay longer; they start filling sand bags and start building bunkers.
If they stay long enough; they build base camps.
As "they" knew what Patton said and they still made us build fixed fortifications; this is why I got out of the Army.
A bunker or cave etc is a good place to hide from imaging gear.
I didn't mean to kill the thread.
Oh yeah like mentioned it's context-specific.Infantry digs a fighting positions when then "spend the night."
If they stay longer; they start filling sand bags and start building bunkers.
If they stay long enough; they build base camps.
As "they" knew what Patton said and they still made us build fixed fortifications; this is why I got out of the Army.
A bunker or cave etc is a good place to hide from imaging gear.
I didn't mean to kill the thread.
I would stand by a standard of "don't build anything you can't afford to abandon at least temporarily".
I wouldn't want to defend a fixed position unless I had major outside fire support or mobile reinforcements. That's probably not gonna happen in the kind of scenario the OP outlined.
Unless they are base camps they are almost always abandoned. You move on to the next spot and start all over again.
Depends on the definition of a fixed position; spending the night is a fixed position or where you lay up to rest during the day is a fixed position. As digging holes etc leaves sign it is best to take advantage of natural cover or concealment.
True, so paging back to square one:
To me that means you are in a fixed position.
In my situation; I live in hill billy heaven. As there isn't much here to interest anyone from the military or mobs I'll probably be staying here. However, there could be folks wandering through the woods avoiding whatever it is that caused them to leave their homes. So some better cover than the house might be a good idea.
Btw, I've lived in the woods and you'll need support or you'll evolve into an unsanitary hunter-gatherer very quickly.
Remember even the wolverines had civilian support..
And with my little army experience in the reserves combat engineers not infantry the barbed wire, high voltage fences and booby traps were just obstacles we were trained to clear for those coming behind us.
Absolutely nothing more beautiful for a military planner than a target that has painted a big target on itself. My little hut in the woods isn't set up the best for defense but I do know every inch of the land and I know the range from any one position to another, no second guessing about whether or not it's 150 yards or 320 yards. Biggest advantage is its inconspicuousness and the fact it isn't particularly strategic or sinister looking.
I think most places like mine would get overlooked even by the looters in favor of the larger houses and farms in the area.
Not being at odds with your neighbor or flaunting every new tacticool toy you procure is more advantageous than the electric fence.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
OG,
I know what Engineers do and I also know almost every Vn Vet has a PH.d in filling sandbags. The Engineers built large and small base camps. Although they may have built some; all the Arty FSBs I saw were built by Infantry.
Vietnam was the first war where 99% of the time our Infantry units fought under an artillery umbrella. Vietnam was also the first war where because of the helicopter the infantry could be moved very quickly. To keep the infantry under the umbrella meant the artillery had to move also.
As an example of how it worked:
An Inf battalion establishes a perimeter, holes and wire. Helicopters lifted 105s in. One or two infantry companies would be "taking a break" protecting the FSBs perimeter as the other two infantry companies were out playing hide and seek.
I saw them all the time and Infantry built them. Some times a Chinook would deliver sandbags on the hook. lol However, that was to enhance the holes.
I am talking about field positions. The fixed position begins with foxholes behind concertina, trip flares and claymores and ends with a base camp. A fixed positions can be as simple as our lines during the Battle of the Bulge. Both Bastogne and Stalingrad were also fixed positions and the attackers lost.
To overcome a fixed position is simple; it is overwhelmed and overrun. To stop from being overrun is simple; you overwhelm the attackers. It is a simple debate decided by who has more ammunition, assets and blood to do the overwhelming.
Every night a Grunt digs in to avoid incoming rounds or shrapnel from RPGs or mortars. In case they were attacked that night, he wants a hole.
Yes, I know about fixed positions. The enemy built them and every time the enemy built a bunker line when we found it we destroyed it. After their concealment was compromised then their cover was destroyed. However, they would debate the destroying with us; after the debate became too painful they'd leave and start all over again some place else.
Fixed positions are "easily" eliminated and so are the hikers. The advantage to fixed positions is with cover; you get a longer chance to live "to make the other bastard die for his" country. No one fights from concealment unless it is an ambush or an attack. They want cover because the shyte is flying in both directions.
Contrary to popular belief, VC and other Guerrillas don't spend their lives under the stars.
In terms of the OP I'm defining "Fixed position" in terms of things like houses, farm buildings, etc.
I see your point that you could dig in around them in a more effective way than the OP wrote about.
What about this though:
Instead of fortifying a position and allowing the enemy to decide when to attack and keep you under siege (you can't harvest crops from a foxhole) you:
1. invest more personnel in recon
2. when an incoming attack is detected either
a. ambush it if you have a superior force or
b. abandon the central position then attack the enemy when/if they pool in it
If they're dumb enough to throw a party over their victory you could potentially surround and assail a much larger force and win.
Heck, I'd leave a big pallet of moonshine right in the middle of camp then attack at dawn.
Good thought except recon means people not gathering food. No recon force can provide security against someone sneaking up and attacking the workers in the fields. In a shtf world it would be the same as it was in Colonial Times.
As a house creates blind spots so you would not want the "foxholes" by the house.
They are concealment not cover.
What about this though:
The fortified position would give you a place to regroup and now you have more firepower and cover. If you want a track meet the chances of a loss are pretty good also. Plus older people and kids don't do well in running firefights.
That means grow more food which means your food needs get larger so recon has to cover more ground. You have the recon and heavy lifter support idea down correctly; however do you have the fields, pastures and water to support it?
You said when detected; it is if detected.
Ambush is always a good thought the results are you either kill them or sill some and beat feet.
If the nazi attack in the Ardennes would have been detected; it would have been annihilated. It wasn't detected so instead it became an all out brawl of a battle.
Or harass and snipe the shit outa them until they leave so you can rebuild.
Moonshine or worse because in such a world all destructive device laws are "suspended." lol
There is a moment before dawn is when the average person hits the deep sleep mode.
As always we train for the last war and are rarely prepared for the next. My kick on fixed fortified positions is they are both obvious and easy targets no matte how hard you make them. Fixed fortified positions are vulnerable as soon as their egress and exit is compromised and communications shut down. After artillery replaced trebuchets and rifles replaced the long bow forts stopped being viable for anything except a dry place to sleep in and room to hang maps.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
"Augusto Pinochet" - was a Chilean army general and president who assumed power in a coup d'ιtat on September 11, 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted. The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every Americans guarantee of freedom. - - President Harry S. Truman, Years of Trial and Hope
Thank you, thank you- but I mean who will be OUR Pinochet?
Last edited by matshock; 08-16-2010 at 09:19 AM.
Don't even joke about that. Bad enough the current crop of misfits in the Whitehouse don't have a clue and abuse the constitution just because they can get away with it. A military coup would stick us right in with the 3rd world countries who pretend to have elections but just go from coup to coup. We would not be the United States anymore. Republic may not have been the absolute best choice for form of government but its still the best alternative I know of and a military coup wold be a death blow to our Republic. That is not the way we change leaders.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
What would have been the result of the simultaneous attacks during the 68 Tet without base camp fortifications?
In war, one side attacks and the other defends; defending without cover is to the attackers advantage. When being attacked cover is a good thing.
I'd rather have a right-wing coup than a revolution/civil war any day. If the Democrats and their thugs completely wreck the country/currency/economy we won't fix it without completely removing them from power, permanently.
Do you think they're just going to let elections happen that do that?
IF they do I'll certainly be the first to see them happen, if they don't then what happens to our Republic anyway?
Last edited by matshock; 08-17-2010 at 09:56 AM.
No argument there, I'm only saying a standalone fortification is not a military installation but a target.
No difference between a right wing coup and a left wing coup except in the language. Both will be totalitarian, both will accept no dissent, both will destroy the constitution and the Republic will be no more. Effective change that is productive can only come through the ballot box, not out of a gun. The threat of our civilian guns and an army sworn to uphold the constitution and who came from the civilian population is the only thing preventing the oligarchs in office from pushing all the way to their version of utopia.I'd rather have a right-wing coup than a revolution/civil war any day. If the Democrats and their thugs completely wreck the country/currency/economy we won't fix it without completely removing them from power, permanently.
Do you think they're just going to let elections happen that do that?
IF they do I'll certainly be the first to see them happen, if they don't then what happens to our Republic anyway?
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
That's not what happened in Chile. Pinochet was even arrested and subjected to a pretty long investigation and house arrest a few years after he willingly stepped down.
I agree- ballot box first. But if the count is obviously fixed or if the opposistion doesn't even allow a count to take place what will you say then? Better to live under the tyranny of a fixed election then to live under the tyranny of a dictator that has a worldview similar to yours?
Pinochet was president for 16 years and thousands of people disappeared under his regime. He wasn't arrested till after he left power a sick old man. He had a lot of things to answer for but while he was in office he was untouchable. That is what a coup does, puts an untouchable in office till they either step down voluntarily or they die for whatever reason.
Fixed election.......you mean we wouldn't stand for a fixed election. Kennedy gaining office comes to mind, Thank you Mayor Richard J. Daley. Franken is in the senate and they only had to recount the ballots over and over and over again till they finally got the right tally. Just two examples off the top of my head. I'm sure any Democrat will be happy to point to Bush Jr. getting in via the botched Florida count and the Supreme court decision that finally put a stop to the silliness. Not right but we have always had them and as long as there is money and power at stake there always will be cheating. The point is to find and stop the most egregious efforts. It isn't perfect but its still the best system we have.
Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA
"THE STATE THAT SEPARATES ITS SCHOLARS FROM IT WARRIORS WILL HAVE ITS THINKING DONE BY COWARDS AND ITS FIGHTING DONE BY FOOLS"
THUCYDIDES.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks