"AR15s, advanced weaponry, and an American "Troubles"" Topic

link

Note the poster's use of "consent" -- a new word for an old idea, I think.

But yes, Apache gunships are not particularly useful against hillbillys.

The US armed forces combined will probably struggle to amass even 100.000 people you can really hand a M4 and tell to patrol Anytown, Idaho, keeping a look out for y'all Qaeda.

Y'all Qaeda! Admit it, this thread is worth it just for that!

Follow-up thread: link

Basically arguing that US infrastructure, starting with the powergrid, is so vulnerable that it is easily disrupted and then everything goes to hell. And pretty quickly the Apaches don't fly.

The author seems to hold right-wing yahoos and our left-wing elites in equal disdain.

doc, I agree, it was worth it just for the Y'all Queda!

Y'all Queda is nothing new, I heard that phrase back during the Cliven/Ammon Bundy standoff in 2016.

Apache gunships are not particularly useful against hillbillys.

They are pretty useful against anything, IMO!

tell to patrol Anytown, Idaho, keeping a look out for y'all Qaeda.

I got an AR-15 … just in case. AQ most likely will not be the threat here in the USA. Even with open borders. However … there may be other threats because of it.

Okay, well, t was new to me.

Twitter!! So that's what it looks like.

I am with you Legion, I would take any Apache variants with that chain gun.

I am fully armed today with a Ranger 22S that I have had for over 60 years. Just need the one shot. Ha! Ha!

I have four ARs not to mention the one at work. I do feel a bit undergunned when it comes to Apaches though. lol

Yes, Choctaw, but I'll bet your logistical tail is .01% that of an Apache.

How is some random Twitter post worthy? I mean it's not entirely wrong- standard military forces historically struggle against insurgents. It also is not the whole story- our military has spent the better part of two decades on counter insurgency operations. Even before that, if you look a casualty rates in say Viet Nam, the US was definitely inflicting the far higher rates.

It also ignores that right wing terrorism is nothing new and has accounted for the majority of all incidents since 1994 and has rapidly accelerated in the last six or so years. The fact that this information has been slow to disseminate and faces large resistance is not surprising given the strength of right wing media and institutional and historical inertia. America has been slow to acknowledge and deal with the injustices ingrained and protected in its systems and any time significant change is threatened, reactionaries tend to sprout.

military forces historically struggle against insurgents.

Yes that is common knowledge to anyone who studies history … but yes, some may need reminded of that.

if you look a casualty rates in say Viet Nam, the US was definitely inflicting the far higher rates.

Yes, technology/firepower and knowing how to use it will do that …

It also ignores that right wing terrorism is nothing new and has accounted for the majority of all incidents since 1994 and has rapidly accelerated in the last six or so years.

Yes, right-wing terrorism … is that different than other terrorism. You mean Neo-Nazis, KKK, White Supremasists, Biker gangs, Survivalists, Jihadis, nut jobs who just have guns with no affiliation, etc. ?

Or the average gun owner, NRA members, etc. ?

Insurgent casualty rates are an irrelevance in counter insurgency warfare. Vietnamese and Taliban proved that.

Leaving politics aside, perhaps we can discuss the technology available to the median good old boy or gangbanger? We in the US are happy in not having the long history of tribal wars and frequent invasions like Afghanistan. But we are a generally literate and tech savvy people, with wide access to trucks and atv, firearms, combustibles, and explosives ,plus radio and computers. Obviously a government would have weapons systems like Apaches and drones etc etc that an insurgency could not match. But have we seen a relatively high tech insurgency?

I've no idea but I'll bet some here know, from Afghanistan, how many bases for advanced weapons are required in terms of the size and shape of the country. Let's say you are in charge of suppressing an insurgency in someplace like Idaho. Lots of open sky and empty space, but BIG. How many airbases, each of which requires, what, a battalion of troops for perimeter defense, would it take to control Idaho?

Now do Tennessee, with four biggish cities, lots of towns, and lots of rural areas with hills and forest. You are the UNcommander responsible for suppressing an insurgency supported by 10% of the people. How many battalions, and how many aircraft, do you require?

Just thinking about my own home, Chattanooga. Could you control it with a battalion? Not even close. It SPRAWLS, bisected by the Tennessee River which is crossable in only two spots, the three downtown bridges plus two bridges upriver near the dam that generates much of the electricity. So bottlenecks. Two "mountains" (ridges, really), Signal Mountain and Lookout Mountain, both densely populated with VERY limited and steep roads -- and from which one can observe (and might shell if one had the ability) everything in the valley. Plus there are two major power plants outside of town, at Raccoon Mountain and Sequoya (nuclear). A battalion fields, what, fewer than ten platoons? You'd need a REGIMENT or brigade to protect all the places you'd have to secure, and that might not be enough.

Wars are won in the will. Whoever is still in the field at the end wins.

In these US of A's, the fighting would end shortly after the wifi went out.

Exeter: 1. yes
2. No. But the population would tend to support whoever could keep the lights on.

Are you familiar with the loss of strength gradient?

link

In VietNam or Afghanistan, or for Britain in America, willing was one of a list of priorities, and not the top one.

For the VC or the Taliban or Francis Marion, winning was the first and ONLY priority.

A surrounding horde armed with deer-hunting rifles could certainly make a garrison untenable with constant long-range sniping. You might have the heavy firepower to hose down an area, but they only need to be patient enough for one shot…

Yes, right-wing terrorism … is that different than other terrorism. You mean Neo-Nazis, KKK, White Supremasists, Biker gangs, Survivalists, Jihadis, nut jobs who just have guns with no affiliation, etc. ?

Yes, Neo-Nazis, KKK, White Identity/Supremacists, Patriot Militias and the like and considered right wing terrorist groups. Jihadis are categorized as religious terrorism (specifically Islamic). Acts by eco-terrorists, those who target conservatives, anarchists, etc. are generally left wing terrorism. It's not that complicated.

Or the average gun owner, NRA members, etc. ?

I see the victim mentality is kicking in. Stop it. If you want to make an association between average gun owners, NRA members and right wing terrorism, that's on you and it feeds directly into rightwing extremists attempting to normalize their views.

Doc Mcb: your questions sound disturbingly close to Turner diaries fantasy. Do you imagine that the majority of the populace would rather turn to armed insurrection rather than try to preserve a democratic system? Do you imagine Chatanooga would side with insurgent separatists willing to kill fellow Americans?

Of course many regions in the US would provide tactical challenges in the event of war, some mass revolt is extremely unlikely. More likely is regional factional extremist violence not supported by the majority of the population. Unlike Afghanistan, however, the US has far more functional systems that would quickly put down such groups. Unless, of course, they continue to be embraced by political leaders legitimizing such violence while also taking steps to undermine democratic process. That sets a much more ominous course.

Yes, Neo-Nazis, KKK, White Identity/Supremacists, Patriot Militias and the like and considered right wing terrorist groups. Jihadis are categorized as religious terrorism (specifically Islamic). Acts by eco-terrorists, those who target conservatives, anarchists, etc. are generally left wing terrorism. It's not that complicated.

No it is not … just wanting to see where you stood on that. Don't forget Antifa anarchists … but they are not old enough to get guns ? Until they do …

NRA members and right wing terrorism, that's on you and it feeds directly into rightwing extremists attempting to normalize their views.

All legal gun owners and NRA members are not rightwing extremists, BTW. And these types are very few compared to guys like me … Vets, Blue collar workers, low paid White collar workers, etc. As we know by the time LEOs get there is will be too late. If there are any left after defunding, etc. I know, many of my friends are LEOs.

Just a reminder … When you out law guns, only outlaws will have guns … it's not complicated …

I see the victim mentality is kicking in. Stop it. If you want to make an association between average gun owners, NRA members and right wing terrorism, that's on you and it feeds directly into rightwing extremists attempting to normalize their views.

Victim ?? Don't think you know what many gun owners I know believe. We are anything but victims … We are trying to not become victims. I don't know if some get that. I am not a member of the NRA, BTW. But support anyone who is.

Again … These "right wing extremists" are very, few compared to most other gun owners. But they are the new boggy men in some minds. The have to have a monster to hunt … and we know how the rest of that saying goes.

Vets, blue & and low wage income workers, etc., are few if any in the ranks of these "extremists". And many of us find these types as misguided racists idiots.

Insurgent casualty rates are an irrelevance in counter insurgency warfare. Vietnamese and Taliban proved that.

Yes we all pretty much know that … you don't always need to post the obvious. But thank you for reminding those that forgot.

Not even sure what the Turner diaries are, may have heard of them vaguely somewhere.

Do you imagine that the majority of the populace would rather turn to armed insurrection rather than try to preserve a democratic system? Do you imagine Chatanooga would side with insurgent separatists willing to kill fellow Americans?

Wow, do YOU actually read what I post? My hypothetical suggested an insurgency backed by 10% of the people. "Rather than try to preserve a democratic system"? How about a RESISTENCE to preserve a democratic system? Why assume one as opposed to the other? And I postulated a UN commander, which would imply foreign troops. But really, my question on this thread is about logistics, and the answers will be the same regardless of the political make-up of the insurgents or the governments involved.

The OP is (I assume) by a Brit and references "the Troubles" in northern Ireland. Which was the IRA, claiming to represent the Roman Catholic minority, vs the Brits. But consider what would happen were the northern counties to join with Ireland, or separate into their own new country. Does anyone think that would bring peace? The Protestants are just as heavily armed and just as motivated; would you simply reverse who was which, between insurgents and government?

Government, certainly in Britain and America, rests on consent, and that consent needs to be overwhelming, 90% +, because there are too many ways, in an advanced economy, to ruin things for everyone, and the response would amount to becoming a police state, which in the long run makes things worse.

"When you out law guns, only outlaws will have guns"
Nice cliché, here is another one I've heard from a friend, "an armed society is a polite society." Trouble is he couldn't name one.

Don't know of any study, but I have seen it suggested that the most violent societies are also the most polite, with Japan and Texas being offered as examples. Or the American south, generally.

LOL Chicago, LA, or really any Democratic stronghold in Urban terrain is VASTLY more violent than Texas, or the South in general. That's just BS.

Ah, but are they as POLITE?

Nice cliché, here is another one I've heard from a friend, "an armed society is a polite society." Trouble is he couldn't name one.

Couldn't name an armed society or a polite one ? Or both ?

An armed society may not be polite, but it is armed …

I'd rather be armed than polite, generally …

LOL Chicago, LA, or really any Democratic stronghold in Urban terrain is VASTLY more violent than Texas, or the South in general. That's just BS.

Some real southern apologism here. You do realize Texas has a seen spikes in violent crime, right? And that generally, crime is highest where population is higher and or/economic activity lower. Guess where some of the poorest areas in the country are? Hint, it's not just the north. The south has some of the highest poverty and crime rates in the country. And while Republicans have worked to undercut democratic representation throughout the south even as conditions decline, they are facing a growing population that in many areas is not receptive if not hostile to such an approach. I don't know if you haven't been watching areas like Virginia, Georgia or North Carolina, but the Southern Strategy is cracking. Growing states are shifting bluer while traditional Republican strongholds stagnate. Likewise some of the traditional Democratic strongholds in the Midwest have shifted red. Racial and economic diversity tells you more about an areas politics than pure geographics. Witness just about every major city in Texas going blue even as the empty counties bleed red. It's why the Texas leg (like many red state governments) is in a panic to restrict voting as much as possible and preserve their dwindling majority.

Studies have repeatedly shown that where you have more guns, you have more gun violence. Trying to defend easy access to deadly weapons based on a safety argument is absurd on its face. However, just as Americans have the right to poison themselves, the right to a firearm has been enshrined by the current Supreme Court.

What any of this has to do with the OP is unclear.

Doc Mcb: I did read your scenario, what I an having trouble understanding is that if we are talking ~10% support in a localized area, how this is even an issue. At most, you would have a standoff like Waco or Ammon Bundy. More likely, people would be so fed up with these troublemakers that the local law enforcement would round them up long before based on community anger. In most areas police have become so militarized, they don't necessarily even need to call in the feds and in other cases are already working closely with some of the agencies.

Additionally, I think people continue to underestimate the role of surveillance an propaganda in squelching insurgency. Were it to get too bad, I could absolutely see drones being utilized as opposed to tanks. Were an insurgent group so bold as to strike at something like a power grid, the hammer would come down fast and hard.

Democratic strongholds? You thinks the city shooters care what party is blaming the other for what? They have a lot more issues to get serious over. You think Republicans can solve this? I would leave politics out of it, means nothing.

Not a fan of the NRA, seems hopelessly corrupt and greedy with those expense accounts and fancy offices. But most of the members, now former members in some cases, I know are just regular folks. Hunt deer, turkey shoots, targets, skeet. They enjoy their firearms and they are not going to war.

I see no leadership or numbers for now among right wing extremists that could run even a modest insurgency that posed a military threat to the nation. Most conservative gun owners have nothing to do with this. Antifa on the left seems to have even less leadership, anarchists, minimally organized, not big into guns and military gear.

My scenario includes some assumptions I did not lay out. Guys, I am REALLY not interested in the politics of this, but the logistics.

I do agree that surveillance and propaganda matter, can be effective. Otoh, the logistics of THAT are worth discussing, too. We have at present a society in which roughly half mistrust roughly the other half, including their media sources of information. A red state may be manipulated by red propaganda but not so much by blue. And vice versa.

Also, as regards surveillance, inmates in a prison are heavily watched, communications monitored, etc, yet crime and contraband, gangs etc continue. There are limits on surveilance.

The POINT -- of the OP, with which I largely agree -- is that it doesn't take a majority or anything like it to disrupt a modern society. That in itself is a BAD THING, though not necessarily the worst thing. I think we are at grave risk of Balkanization or warring tribes or whatever other model of division you think most applicable. Hope I am wrong.

Not a fan of the NRA,

Well like many groups they are not what they started out to be. But I fear without them and some others. The 2d Amendment would be gone. And the criminals will be more of a threat then they are now.

I know are just regular folks. Hunt deer, turkey shoots, targets, skeet. They enjoy their firearms and they are not going to war.

Very true … but that won't give some a monster to use as a scapegoat, as a cover, To get what is good for them. Not the good for we the people.

I see no leadership or numbers for now among right wing extremists that could run even a modest insurgency that posed a military threat to the nation.

Very much so … but don't tell that to some. Who see gun owners as a threat to the USA. The USA that is not for we the people.

Most conservative gun owners have nothing to do with this.

Yes that is so true. But then who could some find as the Monster. That must be slayed.

Antifa on the left seems to have even less

They are nothing but anarchist, anti-capitalism, anti-LEO, anti-gov't, anti-military, and more importantly … Anti-USA. They should be labeled a domestic terrorists. Be actively hunted, to stop their destruction in cities. They seem to get arrested then let out. That needs to change. There is a lot of room at Gitmo.

Note AFAIK Antifa does not show up in rural areas. They'd certainly get shot. Trying to burn down barns, etc.

Antifa would probably not even go into a suburban neighborhood, at least not in a red state.

I don't think they are afraid, but they are not too organized, and they never seem to rally big numbers. They make a good target for right wing news media so they don't have to cover the right wing extremists. I think they are a threat to civil order when they do show, but not much of an insurgency. They are chaotic.

Antifa would probably not even go into a suburban neighborhood

You got that right … in deepest darkest suburbia/the 'burbs in the USA. There are many suburban dwellers well armed and dangerous to clowns like Antifa.

I don't think they are afraid,

They should be afraid … very afraid if they come to neighborhoods like mine and others. It literally is my backyard. Like the VC in Vietnam.
Unlike the VC … I'm old, semi-crippled and fat … I don't have to run … I'm well armed and know how to use my weapons. And I'm not the only one.

They make a good target for right wing news media so they don't have to cover the right wing extremists

IMO, not really … As I said before, most right wing extremists come off being racist idiots, to many conservatives, etc., etc. Even to the conservative media, in most cases.

Generally these types get a permit to protest, dress up in goofy uniforms, sing Nazi/KKK/White Supremacists, etc., songs, march around and make fools of themselves to anyone with any common sense, etc.

But they rarely, if ever burn down city blocks and loot to protest various "causes", etc. Like in over 540 + riots that happened last summer. I can't be the only one who sees this ? Not that I support any of these right wing extremists fools, in any way, shape or form. But I don't support those that burn down and loot city blocks for any reason, either. At least during peacetime.

We all have the right to peaceful assembly & protest … anything otherwise is a crime. How do some not understand that …?

I just don't know. There were over 10,000 peaceful demonstrations to go with the 500+ violent ones. Somebody must study this stuff. What kind of anger makes people make this terrible wrong turn?

Last summer the right wing cable network mentioned Antifa all the time, more than twice as much as the other networks. Politicizing everything blocks solutions. Anti-fascist anarchist thugs is not the whole story. There were plenty of opportunists at these things looking for loot or counter-demonstrating. And a whole lot of angry people fed up with the status quo.

I hope somebody is working on better tactical responses to protect lives and property etc. when this happens, whether we call it a riot or an insurrection next time.

Before Antifa, I was close by to Newark and in Plainfield in 1967 and remember armored vehicles going down the street and automatic weapons fire in the distance. 26 dead. Just in case anybody thinks last year was something new. You might also check out what happened in Tulsa 100 years ago. Or LA after Rodney King.

This is not about blame anyway. We keep experiencing these things. I don't want an insurrection. What now?

The funny thing is that right wing terrorist espouse Socialist views in actuality. People blithely ignore the Socialist part of that Nazi name. Stalinism, Maoism and Nazism share a lot more that people normally admit. All 3 had ethnic purging, centralized control, etc. All 3 expanded their borders.

All three also were for strong gun control just to protect us.

As far as I'm concerned communists and nazis are just two sides of the same coin. When they fight, we all win.

There were over 10,000 peaceful demonstrations to go with the 500+ violent ones.

True … and the same can be said about 6 Jan. I know people who were there. They were no where near the Capital building. And didn't plan to. Regardless I don't support those criminals that attacked the Capital anymore than I do the rioters of last summer that burned & looted … Both were criminals, IMO.

Last summer the right wing cable network mentioned Antifa all the time, more than twice as much as the other networks.

Because Antifa didn't fit the agenda of the other medias' narratives. Antifa attacked & destroyed Federal, State & local property. The footage is clear. Pallets of bricks & boxes of stones were left at strategic locations for Antifa's use, etc. Again I saw the footage … it's on the web as well.

Anti-fascist anarchist thugs is not the whole story.

They were not … but they were the most organized, trained, etc., to create anarchy.

There were plenty of opportunists at these things looking for loot or counter-demonstrating.

Always is … but would those opportunists have taken advantage regardless ? Antifa was an organized trained mob of anarchists. That is the bottom line. They may have been small in numbers. But knew what they were doing. And knew they would be the precursor to what would inevitably follow.

Just like in West Germany during the Cold War. Small groups of East German or Russia "agents". Infiltrated & instigated students, etc., to riot against the USA, the German gov't etc. Antifa is based on that model. They were actually started in Germany. But instead of being Communists they were anarchists.

However, the riots still played into the USSR's plans to destabilize the West. I would not be surprised if Putin and/or Xi managed to get laundered funding to groups like Antifa & BLM. Just like those in the USA like Soros, etc. Again to destabilized the USA, etc.

And a whole lot of angry people fed up with the status quo.

Yes that was and is on both ends of the spectrum.

I hope somebody is working on better tactical responses to protect lives and property etc. when this happens,

The plans were there. Even in the 101 we trained for riot control. But the problem was even after the FBI, etc., told the Capital Police, etc., there may be trouble. Those LEOs asked for assistance. But was ignored until is was too late.

I don't have to tell anyone who is in charge of the defense of the Capital building. The whole thing reminds me of Benghazi and more recently A'stan. Those in charge were told the intel and were warned. But again those in charge ignored the intel, etc. And moved too late. At great cost … But not to those who make these decisions.

The NG needs a few days to get mobilized and deployed. They are not RDF. To have gotten them there before the 6 Jan. riot. They would have been given orders about 3 days before. The intel was there at least 3 days before 6 Jan … But even then they may have come too late, anyway? We will never know.

The math is simple. IMO, I mentioned 3 occasions where those in charge were incompetent, unprepared, etc.

in 1967 and remember armored vehicles going down the street and automatic weapons fire in the distance.

That was the 60's and yes it was very turbulent as we all know. And yes that was not the first or will be the last of such events as you mentioned. How do we prevent this sort of thing happening again ? That may be a big unknown. Since no one can see the future.

What now?

Well in my experience it starts with good leadership, something that in many cases is sorely lacking in our elected & appointed officials. Along with planning and training. But is this sort of thing even on their radar ? That certainly is a Big X Factor … But I'm afraid I know the answer.

I do know what is on their radar … the next election and who to get the $ from. To support them … For them … not "we the people".

Agree very much with this Legion. I don't know much about Antifa it seems.

That new CP commander has a plan now, I bet.

When you have leadership, pieces begin to fall into place and everything starts to come into focus. You can feel it, there is energy and purpose and you run with it and do the job.

Legion, yes, thank you.

I am not one for conspiracy theories, etc. But it is clear the media is very biased in any event. And our leaders lie to make their facts fit their agenda, narrative, etc.

I tend to try to look at all sides of an event, situation, etc. As an Infantry Officer on active duty, '79-'90, then an MI officer in the USAR, '91. Threat assessment is something to be taken seriously. IMO based on Antifa's & BLM's actions, dogma, agenda, etc., I see them as a threat to many of our institutions, history, standards, good order, etc.

Just watch the footage & comments from the summer of 2020 riots online. Not peaceful protests, but riots & looting … we all know & can see the difference. Whenever Antifa & BLM showed up burning, looting, destruction of private and state property, injuries to LEOs, etc., was almost sure to occur.

Was all that due to these two groups ? No … but as mentioned there were criminals, etc., willing to take advantage of the situation, etc. But there were members of those groups doing the burning and destruction of a city block(s), etc., too. Again it's in the footage of those 2020 summer riots.

Antifa showing up in all black with backpacks and their faces covered demonstrates to me, my threat assessment … they are a threat and have something to hide.

Again, peaceful assembly & protest is our right as Americans. Burning, looting, etc., are not.

BTW Here is a pretty good history of Antifa, and they/anarchists are nothing new.
link

Key take away from the link:

Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, and anti-state views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies. A majority of individuals involved are anarchists, communists, and socialists who describe themselves as revolutionaries[8] and criticize liberal democracy,[9] although some social democrats and others on the American Left[10] (i.e., environmentalists, LGBT and indigenous rights advocates[6]) also adhere to the antifa movement.[9] The name antifa and the logo with two flags representing anarchism and communism are derived from the German antifa movement.[11]

Read the whole link to get the bigger picture, etc.

Pallets of bricks & boxes of stones were left at strategic locations for Antifa's use, etc. Again I saw the footage … it's on the web as well.

Snopes gives that a "Mostly False" rating:

link

But yet I saw the footage …

And yet Anfita was destroying and burning property … regardless if "mostly" those piles of bricks, etc., were not always there.

If those pallets of bricks and boxes of rocks were only there once, that proves the fact. Hence the uses of the word "mostly" and not "always", or not ever. E.g. How many mines in a minefield have to be there to be dangerous ? If you can't see any as they are buried, but yet there is only one … that is a danger.

The looting & burning by Antifa[and others plus including looting ] is again clear. That can't be denied. Whether there was one pile of bricks and/or rocks or none. The damage to property and injuries to LEOs, etc., was again clear.

The footage is on the net, etc.

Legion 4, I was sad you didn't comment on my response to your post here:

TMP link

:)

That new CP commander has a plan now, I bet.

I certainly hope so … but I have my doubts. And the Speaker of the House is in charge of Capital defense.

When you have leadership, pieces begin to fall into place and everything starts to come into focus. You can feel it, there is energy and purpose and you run with it and do the job.

Yes, very much so. We can see it thru out history. And my own experience demonstrates that as well. Especially when we were evaluated on our leadership skills. As well as evaluate others. We know and can see the "good, capable" leaders. By their actions and effectiveness.

And it is clear to me currently that "good, capable" leaders in top positions are few and far between.

I was sad you didn't comment on my response to your post here:

Well Steve my long passed youth didn't include the ACW !

But I did study the ACW, etc., like many here. However I will not take blame or credit for anything the Union Army did or failed to do. 😁 If I was around back then I'd have been with an Ohio Rgt., and probably KIA'd … 😲

But yes, I wargamed battles of the ACW … with varying results, IIRC.,🤔🤩

And I would likely have served in the Arizona Militia and then the CSA's Arizona Rangers.

I work in critical industry. The US supply chain is already stretched to near its breaking point and would not survive a true domestic conflict. COIN forces would be largely limited to consumables on hand, and also be subject to frequent green-on-blue attacks. That's to say nothing of equipment stored in dispersed NG armories with minimal on-site security.

Compare the size and population of the US to that of Afghanistan. All but the most localized insurgency would not be militarily defeatable.

Good intel … and I do think you are correct on all points.

I mean for being a Jonny Reb and all …

But seriously I do believe all that you said is most likely accurate. Hopefully we'll never have to find out …

The world's supply chain, you mean. I hear the same thing from friends in Europe and especially Britain. It will take many months for the pandemic to resolve as a global economic disruption if we are lucky.

I think there there is no significant upper level leadership for an insurgency. Lets say the Arizona militia scores some major victories. Then what? You would need buy in from nearly the entire country for this to change anything, would you not?