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 :) >> And TAKE NOTICE all WANNA BE INSURRECTIONISTS - our TLA 'friends' will >> 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.