It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Army Urges Preparations for Troops to Occupy NYC & Other “Megacities”

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 08:56 AM
What I don't get is if the police are going to work with the military to takeover cities why haven't I been debriefed yet?

Why have none of my friends that work at other police departments or sheriff's offices been debriefed yet?

If something like this is going to happen you would think that we would have alreardy been informed of it.

I have serious doubts that I am going to wake up one morning, drive to squad meeting and have the chief tell everyone, "hey guys were going to start taking over cities today."

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: TechniXcality

Yet the National Guard did exactly this after hurricane Katrina. They actually went door to door to confiscate guns from citizens.

That said, this may work in the Northeast and California, but most of the States in the union will not tolerate this kind of abuse of power.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:07 AM
If the people rise in opposition to their government, it is because of the policies of that government...

Policy is both the cause and the reaction...

Constitution is not just some document, it is a creed to live by.

social contract?

Actual or hypothetical compact between the ruled and their rulers. The original inspiration for the notion may derive from the biblical covenant between God and Abraham, but it is most closely associated with the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes argued that the absolute power of the sovereign is justified by a hypothetical social contract in which the people agree to obey him in all matters in return for a guarantee of peace and security, which they lack in the warlike “state of nature” posited to exist before the contract is made. Locke believed that rulers also were obliged to protect private property and the right to freedom of thought, speech, and worship. Rousseau held that in the state of nature people are unwarlike but also undeveloped in reasoning and morality; in surrendering their individual freedom, they acquire political liberty and civil rights within a system of laws based on the “general will” of the governed. The idea of the social contract influenced the shapers of the American Revolution and the French Revolution and the constitutions that followed them.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:29 AM
Wanted to see some of the training manuals on this subject, you all should read them:

Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America
“Warning shots will not be fired”

Prison Planet
Link to PDF: CIVIL DISTURBANCE OPERATIONS: United States Army Military Police School

Page 20: (2) The use of deadly force is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort
when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under
one or more of the following circumstances:
(a) Self- defense and defense of others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to
protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(b) Assets involving national security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent
the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically
designated as “vital to national security” only when their loss, damage, or compromise would
seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear
weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted area as
containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.
(c) Assets no involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. When deadly force
reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as
operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the
hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily
harm to others. Examples include high risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition,
explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.
(d) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent
the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm.
Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.
(e) Arrest or apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest,
apprehend, or prevent the escape of a person who, there is probably cause to believe, has committed
an offense of the nature in (2) through (4) above.
(f) Escapes. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD
Components and reasonable appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided
law enforcement or security personnel have probable cause to believe that the escaping prisoner
poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to security personnel or others.
(3) Every Soldier has the right under the law to use reasonably necessary force to defend himself
against violent and dangerous personal attack. The limitations of this paragraph are not intended to
infringe on this right, but to prevent the unauthorized or random use of other types of deadly force.
(4) In addition, the following policies regarding the use of deadly force will be observed:
(a) Give an order to halt.
(b) Warning shot will not be fired.
(c) When a firearm is discharged it will be fired with the intent of rendering the person(s) at whom it
is discharged incapable of continuing that activity or course of behavior prompting the individual to
(d) Shot will be fired only with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.
(e) In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there
is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

Page 40: AREA CONTROL TECHNIQUES (3) Sales Restrictions. Restrictions on the sale, transfer, and possession of sensitive material such as
gasoline, firearms, ammunition, and explosives will help control forces in minimizing certain forms of
violence. Limiting the availability of weapons to the potential sniper or terrorist may reduce the
likelihood of such violence. The effective enforcement of these restrictions, however, requires extensive
planning and the commitment of adequate manpower to this effort.

Thus came the op report and similar ones like it!
edit on 9/10/2014 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:29 AM
Nothing new to see here.

The military has always been and will always be prepared for any sort of intervention, when needed.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:17 AM

originally posted by: Britguy
What I find chilling about this is the term "other GLOBAL megacities". Global? Really?

Are they talking about invasion of sovereign states to maintain the lapdogs and puppets they have in place as well, in foreign states? Sounds like they could be rather busy and stretched a bit thin if that is their goal.

I found that chilling also.
Global mega cities? !?
Rather disturbing prospect........

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:18 AM
To the people saying that this is just A-OK. How come a bill for limiting of police militarization failed so brutally right before Ferguson. This is not a ridiculous draconian bill. It prevents the government from giving the police things like drones and nuclear weapons. I guess they do need silencers and biological weapons too.

The vote on the bill to prevent our local police from having literal WMDs failed 62 to 355. For those of you who are in informed that means even democrats were on board with this. So add the military discussed in this thread to a police force armed with the full arsenal of military weapons.

Our government is completely in the pocket of corporations. Apparently fighting across the planet earth to secure profits isn't enough. They're now planning to turn their guns on us too.

As many have said Ferguson was a test. Ferguson happened within a month or two after the failure of this bill. The republican (shocker right?) Congressman who introduced this bill even brought it up during Ferguson. Guess even a blatant violation of human and constitutional rights can't stir up our apathy.

This is my first post. Hope I didn't make a fool of myself. Links from Washington Post article and congress website follow. uson/

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:26 AM
a reply to: TinfoilTP

This has prob already been posted but I wanted to make sure since I haven't read the entire thread yet.

General William Devereaux: The Army is a broad sword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator - you do not want the Army in an American city.

A quote from "The Siege" by Bruce Willis and 100% the truth. The military is not for minor problems and the fact you would be happy to use them against the "filthy Occupy protesters" reveals your true intentions. You don't care about Americans, or at least that's what I take from your comments here so far.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:08 PM

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: Char-Lee

If you think the military (or who ever) can take over every "megacity" in the United States, you are extremely foolish or have no understanding on how real life works.

And don't anyone start with the, "government has tanks, jet fighters, drones, nukes" BS. That's pure hyperbole BS.

The only thing we need to worry about is tomorrow. (cue scary music)...

I am not at all sure of that and they of course have the UN if they need.
Marshal Law and then if you tell people there is ....danger... they roll over and expose their bellies.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:15 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Domo1
Excellent post. You said it so well.

Of course there has to be plans in place in case of emergency.
Plans for the big cities especially.
But that 'neutralization' language .. that could go either way, couldn't it?
That's something that is necessary but could easily be misused.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:16 PM
a reply to: tavi45

Well, for one, it's not the federal government's place to tell state and municipal law-enforcement offices what they can and cannot have. So, yes, an over-reaching bill like that should have been voted down. What would you prefer the military do with excess equipment, if not recycle it to other law enforcment groups? Just destroy it and waste the money spent on them? Keep leaving stuff behind in other countries in order to save money on redeployment of the military? I'm also not a fan of local police having nukes (a point made in your WaPo link that is wouldn't happen), but I don't really see a problem with "tactical" vehicles and similar items, assuming the organization can afford the maintenance. I'd prefer it didn't happen, but it's better than just trashing them, leaving them, or selling them to ISIS.

Re-read the PDF--your interpretation of it is ignorant and paranoid. It does not discuss any plans to "turn their guns on us too."

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:19 PM
In our city they have been moving military vehicles in (including helicopters) and we have no military base/post nearby, not even a guard unit. Our police train with the military and they dress like soldiers, not police officers. We've thought it was very weird for a long time, but nobody else seems to think anything of it.

I've posted in other threads about this as well as the many roadblocks and checkpoints that are all over the area and they are not for border patrol, these are checkpoints for drugs (which are illegal) and DUI. I've also heard that they've had checkpoints for looking for individual's too, but I haven't seen those myself, so cannot attest to whether it's true or not.

Someone posted a video in another thread of a military/police training event that took place at night in Miami, FL. People were not warned about this and were freaking out because they were firing shots, not live ammo of course, but still, the general public didn't know that. Why do our police need to train with the military?

I don't like any of this one bit.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:23 PM
a reply to: AnteBellum

The title of this thread is rather misleading.

If you read the PDF (not the panicky doom porn article,) it's a study of the military ramifications of warfare in a large city, which is not an unreasonable thing for the US military to be concerned about. Geez, just look at the first paragraph:

Cities with populations of ten million or more are given a special designation: megacity. There are currently over twenty megacities in the world, and by 2025 there will be close to forty. The trends are clear. Megacities are growing, they are becoming more connected, and the ability of host nation governments to effectively deal with their explosive growth and maintain security is, in many cases, diminishing. Megacities are a unique environment that the U.S. Army does not fully understand.

Cited megacities include Lagos, Nigeria; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Mexico City; Bangkok, Thailand. Yes, they reference New York City, but they don't say that they need to prepare to invade and occupy it. It's silly to assume that just because a city in the US is cited, it means that they're calling for an invasion, which is the leap that the doom porn article makes.

"This is it. It's happening."


posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 12:26 PM
Really? Lets take an urban area of 5,000,000 to be controlled involuntarily.

Even at a ratio of 1/100 Civilian vs. Army that's 50,000 soldiers. The Headquarters and Logistical Companies to support 50,000 soldiers in the field is roughly another 50,000.

So 100,000 total.

I understand that the ideal ratio to really control an urban population is 14/1 Civilian/Army - that's over 357,000 in the field troops needed for full control.

The numbers can be argued up and down all day, none of them are supportive of any practical occupation and control of a major US city, much less several at the same time based on manpower available.

Mind you the Army would have to control interstate highway corridors (500 yards either side) in order to ensure food, fuel and other supplies to be delivered city(s) that they are controlling - that is a vast undertaking in itself.

The only way this might work is if the cities population in majority see's the Army as saving them from something or a group of something's. They'd need rest of nation to feel it's a help for logistics to work.

The only scenario that fits the subject IMHO is pandemic outbreak where general population see's quarantine as beneficial.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:14 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Police shouldn't need military equipment to do their job. Especially the stuff mentioned in the bill.

As for wasting those military supplies, you're thinking far too logically. We already overproduce many things like tanks and continue to produce them.

The military industrial complex is out of control. I don't think they need to be worrying about how to control foreign or domestic mega cities. We have a host of problems globally and domestically and so far militarization doesn't seem to help. When was the last time a mega city needed to be controlled? Why is this a big issue now?

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:45 PM

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: AnteBellum

Good, who wants them filthy Occupiers or whatever comes after them taking over cities and lowering quality of life for all by disrupting key infrastructure and distribution of essentials in their quest to fulfill their dear communist manifesto.
They plan for all eventualities whatever the times suggest, it is their duty.


Those "filthy Occupiers" ?? Real classy.
They were just your university students that showed more intelligence than you and your degenerate wall street thug boyfriends that need the army for protection since they are too frail to do anything for themselves.

Every story I read about them had them shatting all over public squares and raping those same naive university students who thought it was worthwhile. Oh and the commies took the peoples donations and ran off with the pots of gold.

Which is more "commie" ?

Protesting the Government OR
Protestors not being allowed to protest the government

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 01:50 PM
I hope people see what it REALLY going on in the world right now (though I fear most dont).

This is yet another rung on the ladder of globalism.

Why would US troops need to protect infrastructure in other major global cities from civil unrest?

Think about it for a minute, people.

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:38 PM
Hi guys, I haven't read all the thread...sick as 2 dogs today so excuse if this has been mentioned. LEOs and Military have a new "toy" now at their disposal. The Z-Ro or Retinal Obfuscation Gun. It renders a citizen blind for around 15 to 20 minutes. The "sonic" toy wasn't enough, or the microwave, now they can blind you. They say it is harmless and non-lethal but didn't they say that about the taser too and yet over 500 people have been killed by the thing. Imagine, being blinded, perhaps permanently. It is probably all a matter of how high the dial gets turned up. At any rate, this latest toy is scary as heck in my book. They have so many "things" to use on us all now, can't help wondering if we have reached the point of no return relevant to our own safety and self defense. Will they use this in NY or wherever eventually?

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 02:44 PM
Some folks say it is doom porn to worry about all of this...well, to me, when armed Military or LEOs can actually blind you, yeah, that is pretty gloomy and doomy to me. Who in their right mind wants to go blind. Who can say the new toy won't blind permanently. Especially if used near smaller kids and babies. The strength of the thing may be a matter of degrees. What an adults vision may withstand, perhaps would not apply to kids/babies/elderly and such. Think about it. This new Z-Ro weapon is horrible...what next already?
edit on 10-9-2014 by shrevegal because: error

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 03:41 PM

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: TinfoilTP

This has prob already been posted but I wanted to make sure since I haven't read the entire thread yet.

General William Devereaux: The Army is a broad sword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator - you do not want the Army in an American city.

A quote from "The Siege" by Bruce Willis and 100% the truth. The military is not for minor problems and the fact you would be happy to use them against the "filthy Occupy protesters" reveals your true intentions. You don't care about Americans, or at least that's what I take from your comments here so far.

So you are going to go to make believe movie land to dig up quotes to base your position on?
I could care less about what some actor was scripted to say in some movie.
"Americans" don't want to be usurped by some communist mob, if they did it would have happened a long time ago.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in