About the only Army Obama can muster to do his dirty work is the SEIU and other thug union groups (and they aren't too happy with Mr. Immigration Christman either) My son was home recently and according to him- the biggest joke in the Military are Obama Jokes.
Blah, blah, blah. Been hearing this since the jack-off took office. It's a fantasy and a scare tactic. Not gonna happen.
reply to post by RocksFromSpace
Any type of control operation using a vastly outnumbered force must rely on an effective force multiplier.
What are some examples?
1. Confusion & Chaos. A simple matter of cutting off the internet and phone communication.
2. Fear. A simple matter of creating a bigger fear than fear of the control force. Loss of basic needs water, food, security, shelter, health.
3. Dispersion weapons, such as drones using chemical or biological agents.
4. Autonomous Robotic force elements.
It's shockingly feasible to control the US population unless there is an alternate communication method developed. That's why I ridicule preppers. The only ones they will be able to bully and exert control over is their neighbors. This is not noble. Quite the contrary. It's evil.
The control force will easily wipe out isolated cells of resistance. With great malice and media coverage to aid propaganda I might expect.
Develop an ad hoc encrypted communication network and I'll be impressed. Thomas Payne's words will ring true again.edit on 6-3-2014 by InverseLookingGlass because: missing word
Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future and the "TEA Party terrorists"
Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010, p. iii. Hereafter cited as TD Pam 525-3-1. The Army defines full spectrum operations as the combination of offensive, defensive, and either stability operations overseas or civil support operations on U.S. soil).
Army capstone and operating concepts must provide guidance concerning how the Army will conduct the range of operations required to defend the republic at home. In this paper, we posit a scenario in which a group of political reactionaries take over a strategically positioned town and have the tacit support of not only local law enforcement but also state government officials, right up to the governor. Under present law, which initially stemmed from bad feelings about Reconstruction, the military’s domestic role is highly circumscribed. In the situation we lay out below, even though the governor refuses to seek federal help to quell the uprising (the usual channel for military assistance), the Constitution allows the president broad leeway in times of insurrection. Citing the precedents of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and Dwight D. Eisenhower sending troops to Little Rock in 1957, the president mobilizes the military and the Department of Homeland Security, to regain control of the city. This scenario requires us to consider how domestic intelligence is gathered and shared, the role of local law enforcement (to the extent that it supports the operation), the scope and limits of the Insurrection Act--for example maintaining a military chain of command but in support of the Attorney General as the Department of Justice is the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) under the conditions of the Act--and the roles of the local, national, and international media.