It's easy to synthesize powerful explosives from stock chemicals and household items. You don't need military grade munitions to blow someone up.
You use asymmetric warfare. Hide among the civilian population; disrupt supply chains and communication networks; employ political intimidation and assassination; sabotage key infrastructure; infiltrate enemy networks; employ propaganda; draw the military into urban warfare; etc. You'd be surprised how useless a predator drone is against someone you cannot see.
True. But you've gotta start with some sort of weaponry - rocks, slingshots, bow & arrow, small arms...
What wanna-be anti-US-Gov't manual you been reading out of , Ethereal ? You maybe need to re-evaluate your stragedy ... just because bin Laden dodged predator drones is no reason for anyone to expect they can do the same ...
It's not my strategy. It's the strategy of every successful insurgency in history. No need to reinvent the wheel brother...
Do you think such products would easily available in this mythical tyrannical government the right is so fond of fantasizing about? I doubt it. Probably because the US spent millions training and arming the Afghan resistance. Giving them stinger missiles as well, that made the difference in the conflict. Your hunting rifle simply is not a capable as stingers. Do you see how your argument....... contradicts itself? You are suggesting that civvies own anti-air missiles, how do you think this would result in the deaths of innocents? A bit obvious.
Are guns enough to take out the mythical invaders and government you talk about? Not by themselves. Only the US has the Predator drones, so your main point would be if America was overtaken by a tyrannical president (leader) would citizens armed with firearms allowed by law be able to overcome its high-tech military? I believe they would because conflicts are not all about weapons. Let's say Obama wins in 2012 and his liberal allies take over all braches of government. The economy then collaspes. Hyperinflation. Riots in the streets of cities, the transportation system halts. Our military is called in to suppress these riots and take over privately held resourses. But the problem: 1) Our modern military needs vast resourses and supply networks to stay moving. Without a large amount of public support, the military could not be fueled, fed and resupplied. That's why China can't float or airlift enough troops or supplies to invade us. 2) Our troops aren't automans or robots that will kill their own countrymen without hesitation. Few officers would call for attacks on their own people who aren't acting aggressively against them or the government. Rebels and insurgents armed with common military rifles and IEDs cause enough havoc in Middle East. Think of what more a rebel force of highly educated Americans could do even if few have automatic weapons. You may want to look at William Forstchen's book "One Second After" to imagine one senario where citizens used guns as a large part of their denfense.
Not trying to re-invent the wheel , Etheral just want to say that it has no sustainable application ... It'd take a whole lot of money to finance such a stratgedy , and with all respect , it just won't work here in the USA ... Big Brother always has the advantage ... just saying , ya know ?
Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics. A successful insurgency ALWAYS needs an outside source of supply. Some other country has to be helping. The exception would be if the military joins the revolution.
Oh, so the tyrannical government is going to ban basic chemical compounds? Because that's all it takes to synthesize explosives.
I always love how people pose this question from time to time and then inevitably accuse those who do the courtesy of answering of "fantasizing" about the "mythical" tyrannical government that they themselves created in their question in the first place.
We don't even need guns. We would win without even so much as a rusty butter knife just because after they got done killing all of us the government would realize they have no one left to rule!
Yes, I've seen other material on some of these studies about subjects following orders without moral restraint. In the real world here in the US, we need to look at recent history (the last 50 years or so) to prove your presumption that our military troops would blindly obey orders to kill our own citizens without provocation. Where has this happened lately in the US? You might point out the Kent State shootings: Ohio National Guard troops fired on protesters who were verbally taunting them, throwing rocks and waving the NVA flag. These were not unprovoked attacks. The other instances where troops have been called in is with several urban riots---all of them with hostile local populations. If I'm missing something, let me know.
That was two replies to two separate points. I am sorry I did not make that clear. To reiterate, the Hind remark was to point out that even when faced by such a terrifying adversary determined people will still fight with rocks if they have to. The second point was that the Soviets did not pull out of Afghanistan because of such great losses of gunships to stingers.
The magnitude of your misunderstanding of currency markets is dwarfed by that of your more fundamental misunderstanding. Once you think for about 30 seconds you should be able to conquer this second problem. Then we can talk. Here's what you should think about: are there a fixed number of jobs in the world? Is there a fixed amount of work? Once you've thought about that: are manufacturing jobs necessarily better than other types of jobs? What happens when people no longer have to perform as much manufacturing labor, just as people no longer have to work as much in agriculture? Finally: What has been the single biggest driver of human success since the advent of the neolithic revolution? Tell me when you've realized why this makes your assertions less tenuous. Then we can talk about how currency markets come in. This is a difficult task for someone with an intuitive style of thinking. It requires the ability to look beyond what you can see, which is also, incidentally, a driving force of human success. A reflective thought style is necessary here.
