Gun and Game Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Unlike Europe, the United States has a homegrown militia movement that is heavily armed and, to varying degrees, ready for battle. When the AR-15 is talked about as a “weapon of war on our streets,” it is frequently mentioned in the same breath how an insurrection in the United States would never stand a chance against the modern weapons of war wielded by the federal government. This would be news to the Viet Cong. People who make such statements are unaware of the dynamics of [asymmetrical warfare].

Anyone who feels frightened by a future they can't fight back against need only remember: The government isn't stupid, which is why they're still a lot more afraid of you than you should be of them. Our own Sam Jacobs' article Asymmetrical Warfare and 4GW: How Militia Groups are America's Domestic Viet Cong serves as a brilliant reminder of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
As someone who's trained soldiers in Asymmetrical Warfare, I'll train civilians also, if it comes down to it. The .gov actually DOES fear us. They'd better, because a man (woman) who uses Asymmetrical tactics, are down to their "nothing to lose" mentality, and have no fear.

One of the most appropriate movie lines ever:

"Even the tiniest flea, will drive the biggest dog, nuts."
<Red Dawn-2012>

Es wurden keine wahreren Worte gesprochen nicht.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,455 Posts
As someone who's trained soldiers in Asymmetrical Warfare, I'll train civilians also, if it comes down to it. The .gov actually DOES fear us. They'd better, because a man (woman) who uses Asymmetrical tactics, are down to their "nothing to lose" mentality, and have no fear.

One of the most appropriate movie lines ever:

"Even the tiniest flea, will drive the biggest dog, nuts."
<Red Dawn-2012>

Es wurden keine wahreren Worte gesprochen nicht.
Absolut korrect
 

·
Wonderment :)
Joined
·
32,895 Posts
information: I give no credence to Kissinger. (Vietnam)
He happens the policy maker.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/asymmetric-warfare-definition-tactics-examples.html

Asymmetric Warfare
Famed policymaker and diplomat Henry Kissinger once commented that ''the guerilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.'' What Kissinger observed was that armies with different sizes and resources can fight in different ways. This has been true throughout human history, but since the mid-20th century we've developed a name for this: asymmetric warfare. Something that is asymmetrical is uneven, unequal, or imbalanced. Asymmetric warfare exists when the two main armies are of unequal size or strength. It's a different way to wage war, when the sides of the conflict don't look the same.

Tactics
In a traditional war, you have two professional armies who have roughly the same experience, resources, and technologies. The only real difference is how they execute their strategies. We call that symmetrical warfare, because both sides essentially look the same. For example, when the Allies fought the Axis, it was a conflict between professional, national armies that were all basically the same.

That's how we expect war to be fought. But what happens if one of the combatants is not a professional army, but a smaller group of insurgents or rebels? The traditional military tactics used to fight a professional army may no longer work. Asymmetrical warfare is most often fought using guerilla tactics, which are aimed at harassing the enemy more than trying to obliterate them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
As someone who's trained soldiers in Asymmetrical Warfare, I'll train civilians also, if it comes down to it. The .gov actually DOES fear us. They'd better, because a man (woman) who uses Asymmetrical tactics, are down to their "nothing to lose" mentality, and have no fear.
I'm glad we've got people like you at the ready. I just pray for your sanity if you ever have to train idiots like myself to do something actually productive.
 

·
Retired IT Dinosaur Wrangler
Joined
·
36,021 Posts
A lot of us are too old and broken down to take an active frontline role in the coming action, but we can certainly offer support..... meals, shelter, ammo handloading, simple weapon repair/servicing, etc. In any army, every fighter is backed up by many support folks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,182 Posts
A lot of us are too old and broken down to take an active frontline role in the coming action, but we can certainly offer support..... meals, shelter, ammo handloading, simple weapon repair/servicing, etc. In any army, every fighter is backed up by many support folks!
Badly wounded Marines lay dying in the jungle. They often found a deadly granade or one more round in their M-16.:usa2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
A lot of us are too old and broken down to take an active frontline role in the coming action, but we can certainly offer support..... meals, shelter, ammo handloading, simple weapon repair/servicing, etc. In any army, every fighter is backed up by many support folks!

You are so correct. When a special operations force of 10 men deploy Mideast from a base in the US, there will be 90 more who have moved before to provide transport, a forward base with quarters and food and munitions and toilet paper, medics, aircraft support, commo support and a few others will be in a forward area to support the 10 who may hit the ground and be in and out before first light.

There is always a need for old codgers to support the front line forces. There is also a great deal of efficiency or corporate knowledge by the older and experienced folks who may load the ammo, prepare the meals, load the packs, and assist in the planning for the mobile few.

As for me, I would be honored to end my tour of this life as support staff in honor of the many who supported me in times before. As said in the Bible it is called the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:15, we help according to our ability at the time. So, I agree totally that we may have a role to play should that need come. IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,852 Posts
Just curious Dragunov? What is your 'job' that you teach this? Are you military? Does the military teach this type of warfare?

Please don't mistake my questions as doubting you or anything along those lines. I'm more exposing my lack of knowledge on this subject matter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,288 Posts
A lot of us are too old and broken down to take an active frontline role in the coming action, but we can certainly offer support..... meals, shelter, ammo handloading, simple weapon repair/servicing, etc. In any army, every fighter is backed up by many support folks!
At 72 I could do that and I've often considered it !!
 

·
Gun Toting Boeing Driver
Joined
·
20,071 Posts
We just got back from the cabin to our farm. Beautiful and rugged terrain.

Insurgents have always given any invading force fits (including US who have the finest equipment, technology, and training of anywhere in the world). Whether it would have been the US invading Japan or Japan trying to invade the US there would have been HUGE casualties. The US probably worse in that we had proficient riflemen but I can't imagine the casualty losses going up against indigent Japanese willing to do anything for their homeland with any tool they might find--and believing that was the directive from their 'god.' Good thing for the US that the atomic bombs worked in causing Japan to surrender. It would have been very hard (even though MacArthur wanted it--which I can't fathom with todays' eyes or any rational war fighting training) and nasty fight would the US had to invade.

I can't imagine a tyranny facing the combination of this terrain we have in the part of the world I'm currently in (western and central PA) with well trained proficient riflemen who didn't want them there. For heavens sake most of these folks have been deer hunting getting up at a God-Awful hour sitting in woods and trees in horrible weather most of their life to get one shot at a game animal. So there's no way an invading Federal (or state or otherwise) force could take or hold the ground. Problem though is communism works from within and often suckers in people who don't realize what's going on until they're in the middle of it. I mean look at the abhorrent irrational behavior caused by the WuFlu and the slowness in understanding the political nature of what's going on (create faceless people--by mandate--kind of like a form of twilight zone droid--scared to hold each other, shake hands, hug, gather, see facial expressions, or greet each other while destroying capital markets, nationalizing huge segments of the economy, and telling people where they can go, whether or not they can worship, get together for concerts and joyful activities, whether or not they can sell, whether or not they can go to gyms or taverns -- this is nuts and communism ! Since when have we given away this authority over basic rights and our lives ?!?).

So even a seemingly rational people can get suckered in.

But organization is always a problem. And some people actually can get suckered into the propaganda (whether it's the WuFlu or communist protests although at this point they're all kind of a part of the same political control agenda).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,368 Posts
I'm glad we've got people like you at the ready. I just pray for your sanity if you ever have to train idiots like myself to do something actually productive.
You'd be surprised at how much patience I actually have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,316 Posts
information: I give no credence to Kissinger. (Vietnam)
He happens the policy maker.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/asymmetric-warfare-definition-tactics-examples.html

Asymmetric Warfare
Famed policymaker and diplomat Henry Kissinger once commented that ''the guerilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.'' What Kissinger observed was that armies with different sizes and resources can fight in different ways. This has been true throughout human history, but since the mid-20th century we've developed a name for this: asymmetric warfare. Something that is asymmetrical is uneven, unequal, or imbalanced. Asymmetric warfare exists when the two main armies are of unequal size or strength. It's a different way to wage war, when the sides of the conflict don't look the same.

Tactics
In a traditional war, you have two professional armies who have roughly the same experience, resources, and technologies. The only real difference is how they execute their strategies. We call that symmetrical warfare, because both sides essentially look the same. For example, when the Allies fought the Axis, it was a conflict between professional, national armies that were all basically the same.

That's how we expect war to be fought. But what happens if one of the combatants is not a professional army, but a smaller group of insurgents or rebels? The traditional military tactics used to fight a professional army may no longer work. Asymmetrical warfare is most often fought using guerilla tactics, which are aimed at harassing the enemy more than trying to obliterate them.
Some things that need to be remembered here. The US military has fallen victim to the sam style of thinking the Brits had during the Revolution. They fought (or tried to) as large military group formations. The American military (at that time) fought using tactics they learned from the Indians. Our military has forgotten that lesson and was reminded of it in Vietnam. However they obviously have forgotten again as evidenced by the mess in the sandbox. Many of us here are students of history. This puts us in the position of remembering how guerrilla warfare works. We would be able to put that knowledge to good use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,104 Posts
the military didn't forget.
they just have to follow orders and ROE's that stop them from actually fighting.

if you gave most of those units some dirt to draw on, a stick, and general Pershing's ROE's things would be a lot different real quick....
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top