U.S. Military trains with local police to suppress "Zombie Invasion" in the U.S.

[IndyDave1776]

Here is the problem, manpower. We only have 2.5 million members of the military to include reserves (and Guard). There are only 850,000 LEOs at all levels. yet we have a population of 300 million. If the military and LEOs tried to crack down the public would overwhelm them.

Just think of sending the military into the inner city. The press would be in full attack mode, preachers would be protesting and the military might be outgunned. And I doubt that many blacks or Hispanics in the military would fight. So what makes you think that they could do anything on a grander scale?

If you folks dislike what happened at Kent State, think of how that incident is viewed by the left. I really doubt that anyone on the left has the balls to even use the military anyway.

Of that population, only about 200 million are between 15 and 64 years of age, no more than half of which would lift a finger. If Ben Franklin's estimate holds true, it would be more like a third, and I am inclined to believe that Americans of today are not nearly of equal quality to those of the 18th century. Ben would have about 70 million as likely candidates to stand up for their rights. I would think on a good day, 50 million would be excellent participation against approximately 3.3 million .gov personnel.

Lets say that the .gov doesn't think of anything so sophisticated as seeing to it that troops are assigned to deal with dissimilar population groups and only 2 million are willing to follow orders. That is 2 million well-trained and well-equipped troops against the rest of us who have been systematically disarmed of most things militarily useful since 1934. Those 2 million will have tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, and a nearly bottomless supply line. They will have satellite, drone, and manned aerial surveillance. They will have control of electronic communications. I am not saying that the citizens can't pull it off, but such asymmetric warfare would have highly asymmetric casualties which may or may not be sustainable.

I also have my doubts that the lapdog media would do any barking. I would not be surprised in the least if they cheered the elimination of those 'domestic terrorists'.

 

[Trooper]

Of that population, only about 200 million are between 15 and 64 years of age, no more than half of which would lift a finger. If Ben Franklin's estimate holds true, it would be more like a third, and I am inclined to believe that Americans of today are not nearly of equal quality to those of the 18th century. Ben would have about 70 million as likely candidates to stand up for their rights. I would think on a good day, 50 million would be excellent participation against approximately 3.3 million .gov personnel.

Lets say that the .gov doesn't think of anything so sophisticated as seeing to it that troops are assigned to deal with dissimilar population groups and only 2 million are willing to follow orders. That is 2 million well-trained and well-equipped troops against the rest of us who have been systematically disarmed of most things militarily useful since 1934. Those 2 million will have tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, and a nearly bottomless supply line. They will have satellite, drone, and manned aerial surveillance. They will have control of electronic communications. I am not saying that the citizens can't pull it off, but such asymmetric warfare would have highly asymmetric casualties which may or may not be sustainable.

I also have my doubts that the lapdog media would do any barking. I would not be surprised in the least if they cheered the elimination of those 'domestic terrorists'.

We just do not have enough armor to do what you suggest. They have cut the tank corps horribly. At best, to include UAVs, they might have enough to do a few major cities. Most of what the military has is used as pinpoint attacks. The military is not set up to do widespread defense.

To effectively do widespread defense the miltiary would need a huge military police corps. It takes nearly three times the troops (MPs) to do defense that it takes to attack. Our combat arms forces are not much more than 50,000 out of the nearly 3 million service members. The majority of the service members do logistics or admin thus are not really good at combat functions. Most troops whine a lot when put on combat mission, even being used as guards.

To effectively "police" the US population it would take at least 5 million service members who are trained in military police (light infantry) tactics. The reason that we do not have a larger MP force is that the combat arms folks do not want the competition for resources from the MPs. Thus the focus in on attack, not defense. And to support 5 million MPs it would take another 10 million logistics and admin personnel at the minimum. Frankly we do not have enough kids in the US who could meet the standards, let alone be trusted with that much power.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We just do not have enough armor to do what you suggest. They have cut the tank corps horribly. At best, to include UAVs, they might have enough to do a few major cities. Most of what the military has is used as pinpoint attacks. The military is not set up to do widespread defense.

To effectively do widespread defense the miltiary would need a huge military police corps. It takes nearly three times the troops (MPs) to do defense that it takes to attack. Our combat arms forces are not much more than 50,000 out of the nearly 3 million service members. The majority of the service members do logistics or admin thus are not really good at combat functions. Most troops whine a lot when put on combat mission, even being used as guards.

To effectively "police" the US population it would take at least 5 million service members who are trained in military police (light infantry) tactics. The reason that we do not have a larger MP force is that the combat arms folks do not want the competition for resources from the MPs. Thus the focus in on attack, not defense. And to support 5 million MPs it would take another 10 million logistics and admin personnel at the minimum. Frankly we do not have enough kids in the US who could meet the standards, let alone be trusted with that much power.

I would agree with this if we confine ourselves to the prevailing rules of engagement (i.e., expecting the army to function like a PD) but in the event that it comes to this, I expect major changes. Now, if you approach it from the perspective of not caring how many people you exterminate, not being able to put a tank or APC on every street corner isn't such a big problem. Once you kill off the majority who would stand up, keeping the sheep in line is, if changed at all, even easier now that they have seen what happens to 'bad people' who buck the system. I would also emphasize that having what most of us would consider an inadequate amount of big ticket hardware is still a quantum leap above having none whatsoever. It is easy to forget how huge a force multiplier this is.

 

[Trooper]

I would agree with this if we confine ourselves to the prevailing rules of engagement (i.e., expecting the army to function like a PD) but in the event that it comes to this, I expect major changes. Now, if you approach it from the perspective of not caring how many people you exterminate, not being able to put a tank or APC on every street corner isn't such a big problem. Once you kill off the majority who would stand up, keeping the sheep in line is, if changed at all, even easier now that they have seen what happens to 'bad people' who buck the system. I would also emphasize that having what most of us would consider an inadequate amount of big ticket hardware is still a quantum leap above having none whatsoever. It is easy to forget how huge a force multiplier this is.

Look, you give us who serve way too much credit. Look at the problems we are having with the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have less military capacity than most libertarians here in the US. Plus how would we even begin to ID all of those who might "resist"? Frankly one population that would be very resistive would be Blacks. How successful have we been in dealing with drug gangs?

Do you think that Obama has the guts to use nuclear weapons on the American people? Or even chemical/biological? Mass extermination, genocide? What makes you think that the leftwingers would go along with that? After all if Obama would take out just the libertarians, he would still have to fear that the homosexuals, the WS Occupy and other groups within his own ranks might turn on him. He has far more to fear from his own ranks than people like you.

Even the sheeple, ie the college professors and journalists, could not be trusted to stay in line.

We are Americans. We have known real freedom unlike those in Russia who went from the Czar to the Communism or Europeans who went from monarchies to oligarchies. We just do not play dumb and blind, at least for long. How well did Prohibition work out? Or the 55 mph speed limit? Or even the AWB? We are passive agressive.

Frankly the left does not have the balls to be hardcore. They would rather use technology, pass meaningless laws or talk it to death (process). A bunch of old women.

 

[Audie Murphy]

Is this really all your going to post in every thread you comment on?