How Can We Combat Modern Military Equipment/Weapons?

[ricomock]

Those LRAD's are highly overrated. Their big weakness is that they obviously only work in the direction they're pointed in. And all it takes is a well-placed missile right into that sensitive dish to mess it all up. Heck, not even that perhaps. Maybe a simple high caliber rifle of some sort will take care of it. Might need a couple AP rounds but I'm sure one could get the job done.

As to people, yes, I'm sure there will be some violent people but Ferguson has taught us that the sensible people outnumber those who will attack others to get what they want. Not only that, they're disorganized and as such, are easily rounded up. A few lone people against a coordinated group of three will be hard pressed to resist such to say the least.

And c'mon now. Look at ALL the prison riots in history. People up against heavily armed guards with nothing but a darn shiv. Do not underestimate people.

You talk about "firing a missile" and acquiring RPGs with such nonchalance, but in the real world getting your hands on such weaponry is very difficult for anyone not in the military or part of a government entity. And I guess we'll have to disagree on the abilities of an LRAD, but try to remember usually what the government tells us about whatever technologies potential is just the tip of the iceberg as they aren't giving away all their secrets.

In regard to bringing up Ferguson, I'm not sure why you brought that up.....because you just proved my point perfectly. You had a "united populace".....with a sense of one common goal outraged at a social injustice. And despite all of their numbers, exactly what happened? Order was restored by the military and police, not because they had the numbers.....but because they had the weaponry, technology and the system quelling the "cause".

Opportunistic rioters aren't really dedicated to their "cause", and lack any form of discipline.....

 


The events at the Bundy Ranch are a much better example of armed Americans taking a stand, than anything that's happened in Furgadishu

[ricomock]

Indeed. I brought up that same point in an earlier thread as well. But one mustn't assume things will go well at all. It's best to plan for the worst case scenario for obvious reasons. We should assume that manpower will be few in number. Now, with a fully-featured 3D printer, I definitely think ones options would open up a lot more. With such, all one would need are some plans to put into the computer and all the materials and boom. Full access to any technology we can salvage.

3d-printing is more or less irrelevant for weapons, much less weapons for war or sustained use. The only non-single-shot firearm I've seen printed was a 1911 printed out of a metal powder scintering 'printer', which took several months and cost upwards of $6k. for precision manufacture, you'd need a decent C&C machine and a good knowledge of how to use it. in desperate times, take a page out of the Chechens' book - you can make a gun out of pretty much anything, as long as you can get bullets. corner one of them in his room and he'll make a submachinegun out of the bedframe.

specific to the US though, I have no idea if that'd help in a suppression/martial law situation. police offices get ex-military equipment close to free when the military hits surplus or equipment no longer meets their requirements. I read about a university in San Francisco that bought their campus security team a humvee with anti-IED measures because they could get it for like 2k, and police departments buying up rocket launchers and other heavy weapons.

some people believe that it's a planned method to work around habeas corpus; arming the police with military equipment so that the military don't need to be deployed against the domestic populace, but in reality it's more just a result of extremely irresponsible and excessive defense contracting. I doubt that police would be able to enact large-scale (see: nationwide) suppression operations even in they wanted to, and I suspect that without the conditioning and training the military are subject to, many would simply turn in their uniforms if the alphabet agencies told them to use widespread lethal force.

I'll come back later if this thread is still going; I wanted to write something about the trend of modern weapons trying to reduce accountability and distance the user from actual murder (see: drone operators), but ldap is giving me cancer

 

CNC.....computer numerical control

[aldra]

yeah, sorry, dunno why I typed that

[Chiefchicken]

Yea.. but this isn't exactly civil war days, we may be able to win a ground war... but what do you do when there is a drone firing laser guided missles at your ass??? i wouldn't jump right out and say we would have no chance but it would definitely be one hell of a fight. I mentioned that you'd have to account for the military forces that would defect and fight for the people, given thats not promised but more than likely; we would end up with some of that technology ourselves. Now we may have a few pieces of military weaponry here and there but would that really help against the hundreds, more than likely thousands of the same things they have stockpilied?  I think the best question here is do you think they were smart enough to put in countermeasures against their own weaponry? Drones, Tanks, Armored personnel carriers etc.??? all that shit has some flaw somewhere in it

[Spectre]

Yea.. but this isn't exactly civil war days, we may be able to win a ground war... but what do you do when there is a drone firing laser guided missles at your ass??? i wouldn't jump right out and say we would have no chance but it would definitely be one hell of a fight. I mentioned that you'd have to account for the military forces that would defect and fight for the people, given thats not promised but more than likely; we would end up with some of that technology ourselves. Now we may have a few pieces of military weaponry here and there but would that really help against the hundreds, more than likely thousands of the same things they have stockpilied?  I think the best question here is do you think they were smart enough to put in countermeasures against their own weaponry? Drones, Tanks, Armored personnel carriers etc.??? all that shit has some flaw somewhere in it

while air superiority is very good in conventional wars like drones and jets and bombs in non traditional conflicts they are not as reliable a drone can't stand on a street corner and provide a "presence" they are very good for strikes not so much for maintaining control. Also there are always very good counters for tanks and APC's IED's and simple things like Molotov's can choke up the engine on a tank and you would be surprised how many small arms rounds go through APC's. You do ave a point fighting would be up hill but non traditional combat is very hard to counter the goal of an occupied people is not to win it is to make it too costly and morale burning to stay

[Chiefchicken]

That falls back to the argument of how many complacent people there would already be, the "control" would be there in some way. then there would be hot spots where every one is revolting, you dont think they would loose a couple missles? wiping out a town or a city can be done with the push of a button

Now the costly and morale burning part i agree with completely thats exactly how the us got fucked in vietnam. i feel as though that'd be very possible here since it would for the most part be guerilla warfare

[Goats]

That falls back to the argument of how many complacent people there would already be, the "control" would be there in some way. then there would be hot spots where every one is revolting, you dont think they would loose a couple missles? wiping out a town or a city can be done with the push of a button

Now the costly and morale burning part i agree with completely thats exactly how the us got fucked in vietnam. i feel as though that'd be very possible here since it would for the most part be guerilla warfare

Vietnam was not fought as a conventional war.

If it was it would have been over in less than a year.

Eg, Phoenix Program. If that had been implemented years before it was, attacks north of the DMZ were conventional, and the action was more military minded rather than police minded with military tactics, the communists would have been wiped out very, very quickly.

[mrbarbwir3]

the same way the sand people do. daisy chained ieds, and fire lots of fire.  but if the air force gets involved at all our lack of access to anti aircraft weaponry would leave us all vulnerable as fuck. maybe some rudimentary homemade shape charged shoulder fired rockets. numbers is the only way we would stand a chance. unity of the people is necessary for guerrilla warfare to be practical or applicable. we need a rifle behind every blade of grass along with help from a foreign power. someone who could help regulate the attack and arm and provide logistics to the rebels. without that resistance would be fruitless.

[1983]

guerrilla warfare has a funny way of making technology meaningless.

look at Vietnam. technologically speaking, that should have been a flat out slaughter...but it wasn't.

Pretty much this, When I worked in Afghanistan as a civi I got to hear alot of what went on.

The US started to use cell phone jammers to stop IEDs so the locals just started using fishing line, They'd have kids bury mines where troops usually did foot patrols, other odds and ends that never really hit the news but most of what was done was unconventional warfare not held down by any law outside of what a person will do and what a person can do.

The military is accountable by the Geneva convention, You as an individual fighter or guerrilla warrior are not.

The worse part being if there was a civil war it's next to near impossible to figure out who's your enemy and who's your friend being in the regular forces where as a nonmilitary combatant you'll have targets galore if you're smart about it.

the same way the sand people do. daisy chained ieds, and fire lots of fire.  but if the air force gets involved at all our lack of access to anti aircraft weaponry would leave us all vulnerable as fuck. maybe some rudimentary homemade shape charged shoulder fired rockets. numbers is the only way we would stand a chance. unity of the people is necessary for guerrilla warfare to be practical or applicable. we need a rifle behind every blade of grass along with help from a foreign power. someone who could help regulate the attack and arm and provide logistics to the rebels. without that resistance would be fruitless.

I was going to say use the IEDs to set off their counter measures first then use a RPG or some home made device, Other options being controlled demolition of buildings and bridges... Drop a building or a bridge on a tank and it's gunna have a bad day.

As for someone mentioning setting the back of a tank on fire to get the engine to snuff out... Maybe in WW2, Modern tanks have taken it into consideration and it takes a little more than a small fire to put them out of commission... You want a tank to have a bad day? Convert a storm sewer into one huge mother of a remote detonated mine and use the heavy iron lid to attempt to "punch through" the belly of the beast or to flip it and render it unable to be used in combat.

Option B, Go to Africa. Get some Ebola samples and rotate it into the chow huts and other areas that the military will frequent.

Even cheaper alternatives are "toe tappers" small landmines made out of 12 gauge shells to take off a foot. Ect.

Al

[reggie_love]

I think an important thing to note is the difference between the goal of an insurgency vs that of a conventional army. Yes, a bunch of armed peasants probably can't take out drones, helicopters, ICBMS, etc. HOWEVER drones don't enforce curfews, helicopters don't drag political prisoners out of their homes in the middle of the night, and ICBMS don't loot supplies from businesses. Boots on the ground do that, and lots and lots of people with rifles are still good against those.

You're not trying to "win" the war. You're trying to survive and disrupt it. You can't beat a conventional army, but you can make it so goddamn expensive (in terms of money, blood, or morale) that they can't be there.

I have no illusions of "overthrowing the government" in the event of tyranny or occupation. I aim to protect my family, friends, and neighbors (and their sovereignty) from those scenarios. That to me is the 21st-century niche of the Second Amendment, and probably the most realistic goal of an armed citizen insurgency. 

[Goats]

I think an important thing to note is the difference between the goal of an insurgency vs that of a conventional army. Yes, a bunch of armed peasants probably can't take out drones, helicopters, ICBMS, etc. HOWEVER drones don't enforce curfews, helicopters don't drag political prisoners out of their homes in the middle of the night, and ICBMS don't loot supplies from businesses. Boots on the ground do that, and lots and lots of people with rifles are still good against those.

You're not trying to "win" the war. You're trying to survive and disrupt it. You can't beat a conventional army, but you can make it so goddamn expensive (in terms of money, blood, or morale) that they can't be there.

I have no illusions of "overthrowing the government" in the event of tyranny or occupation. I aim to protect my family, friends, and neighbors (and their sovereignty) from those scenarios. That to me is the 21st-century niche of the Second Amendment, and probably the most realistic goal of an armed citizen insurgency.

Step 1.
Enforce curfew

Step 2.
Armoured vehicles

Step 3.
House by house, street by street. Search/detain

Step 4.
Resist and be treated as a enemy combatant and get killed. Be outside when curfew is in place and get killed.

[RickyBobby]

nvm