It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What would a war between urban and rural look like?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying no such thing will ever exist. Urban is not going to drift out looking for food if the case exists, suicide mission on one hand, save counting on the good nature of rural folks to give of their plenty. Rural folks are not going into the city looking for anything. now this is all worst case mind you......and to say that country folk would welcome and feed any coming from the concrete world and supermarket paradise.




posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gravelbone
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

I love that how many people seem have this unfounded assumption that city dwellers by and large lack survival knowledge and/or skills due to a close proximity to an urban environment.


You have that backwards. At least from my point of view, the only reason a person would want to spend their life in close proximity to an urban environment, the only way they could bear it, is if they lacked knowledge of the alternative. That said, I live in a massive, ridiculously huge city of Anchorage, AK because my career requires me to do so... so I do see and agree with the point you're trying to make to a degree.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Past history has shown when urban areas suffer natural or otherwise disasters, chaos occurs. They riot, loot, burn, and attack their neighbors. they whine and demand for others to help them. They tend to have a victimized mindset, many will be hiding in fear of the neighbor mobs, awaiting for others to save them.

In rural areas, they are more use to dealing with setbacks and challenges. The more rural the slower help is to come. They understand this independence and secure themselves, their property and then assist with their family and neighbors in organizing order in their communities. It is simply expected from experience.

Population is meaningless if they are not united. Liberal urbanites have shown that they are becoming even more divided amongst themselves nowadays. They don't truly understand nor appreciate real freedom.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Fair enough. Forgive me if my tone seemed bitter.
I hear this argument without augment for anomalies like myself too often.
My location is more ideal than most when compared to living in the downtown area or some other highly congested neighborhood.
But it's still Chicago albeit the far NW corner, and I still live well into the metropolitan corridor, but a section that has multiple ways to travel aside from a street or a highway. Lots of connected forest areas and frontage roads. Train tracks. A river or two. All within a couple miles at most.
Despite mine or anyone's best laid plans, Murphy's Law tends to reign supreme anyhow.
Hopefully, I can get moved sooner rather than later.
I'm not even going to disagree with you in general.
Most of these people wouldn't last very long in a real crisis.




posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 08:51 PM
link   
eh would depend on who the ships(for coastal) and the truckers side with as far as logistics unless they try to go the unmanned trucker route which would make them pretty good targets for most half brained insurgents

if and its a huge if some one wants to go all full idiotic civil war lots of factors would come into play.

are full on states leaving the union and making friends with other states? (see texas and oklahoma for example) they have a good deal of military hardware as far as the states go

who secures the nukes? and how many military assets are diverted to them to fight this hypothetical insurgency? what happens if joe bob and merle get a hold of assets the military cant afford to loose? and or important infrastructure? say "terrorists/freedom fighters threaten to level hoover dam? while at the same time going for as many hostile governors mayors etc they can grab

if the military has to start picking and choosing what to secure what falls through the cracks? and what happens if they go awol not sure on percentages but i wonder what states most of the military/reserves/nat guard come from

do they go to protect the armories? or the water treatment plants? both? then what happens if power goes out in the cities and the water gets shut off?

above poster mentioned population differences larger population needs more food water etc smaller populations can go all vietmen status and hide in population centers to prevent reprisals that would look bad to the international media

what if bio/chem weapons are used rural people know a lot about anthrax city people probably have access to the cdc and medical infrastructure .but chlorine gas is not hard to make hell some rural people could probably load up crop dusters with the stuff and hit the crops in city areas

half our infrastructure is not in the best shape what happens when refineries start going boom,bridges taken out ,supply chains get broken ports get shut down etc

im sure some one will bring up drones/aircraft/tanks etc not the best odds going against guys with ar-15s and hunting rifles ,but take out the drone operators ,sabotage repair facilities ,damage air fields etc (a-10s/choppers would laugh at this) and if its full on Taliban style insurgency what happens when they get a text from their family members who have been captured by some form of insurgency? what happens when the government starts arresting families of the insurgents?

is it a planned thing? like do the insurgents get any form of surprise to hit multiple targets at once (say take out the power plants in ca/ny/Illinois etc) do they end up having every one declare "rebellion" all at once or is it peice meal?

do the states that want to form this breakaway civil war faction call for a constitutional convention first?(not very likely) to create the illusion of legitimacy?

is it a jack ryan debt of honor type of thing or a designated survivor thing where most of the governement gets taken out first (again not very likely) but few examples from tv shows for what its worth, what if its a Jericho type situation where rebel branch of government just starts tossing nukes willy nilly

are out side forces helping stage this? will allies/enemies get involved on either side? proxy forces established guerillas for example , what would the UN be doing what would Nato be doing etc


and keep in mind a good deal of military assets are over seas currently, 7th? fleet in japan for example ,carriers in the middle east or on deployment 56k troops in Korea, forces in Afghanistan/Iraq etc


coups/civil wars are usually terrible (see syria for modern example,or our old civil war for how bad it got) , a Coup/Civil war in usa would have half the world crapping bricks and the other half taking advantage of the situation to go for territorial gains/settling old scores .

nato would be scared/not happy where as china may go for Taiwan with us military distracted, middle east could all go to try to take out the Israelis and or have a sunni v shia civil war, russia could go to rebuild the old empire with nato distracted , south America could break into warring factions or sit it out who knows and in these kind of things unknowns should terrify people and we should all hope we dont live to see such chaotic events



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

The Urban's would slowly starve to death.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Bluntone22

Lol...

What good does marginally better armed do you when the urban areas have 10xs the population and basically all the economic potential?!?

It doesn’t..

(I lied.. the actual number is 5xs the population not 10)




Marginally?
And what good is economic potential when your cities run out of food in about 3 days?

The whole concept is silly.
A civil war isnt happening.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I can agree with this.

I lived in large cities most of my life.

From San Jose, Costa Rica, to Los Angeles, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, to Reno which is significantly smaller than all the previous examples....But it's filling up and I don't like it.

I lived in rural Kansas when I was in the army. Never thought I'd like living out in the sticks. But I have to be honest here; going to sleep at night without hearing sirens, or airplanes, or cars, or people doing what people do in general, is an illuminating experience.

I intend to move back to rural Kansas as I believe cities are nothing but cesspools and three rough days away from descending into insanity.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

!00 to 1 Kill Ratio . Just Sayin ' .............



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
So what about those like me who live neither in the country or in a large urban area? I live in a small town that has just a smidge over 25,000 people. The country is literally 2-3 miles away. So some of us have the best of both worlds. Here in Wisconsin, we respect our rural neighbors. Most are farmers, and they are held in high esteem.

So I have a difficult time believing that there could be urban vs rural civil war. Both sides would suffer greatly. Nothing to do with politics either.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ChiefD

Trump won because many of the moderately sized cities voted for him.

It really depends on which way the wind blows in your moderately sized city, but many also lean a little more moderate to right ... unless they're college towns. Then you may have an issue.

Something for the economic potential crowd to chew on too ... many of those moderate cities are what they are because they have some kind of industrial base. It ain't all barns and fields out in the hinterlands.
edit on 1-7-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

In-Depth Analysis




posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

The Northerners destroyed the South during the civil war. It would be the same result.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

The rural areas cannot protect or hold the food they have..

everyone has the same guns...


In the civil war the north didn’t have 5xs the population....


Lol that is conservative logic though huh??

“Nah uh!!! I would win , cause..”

Lol



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Fair enough on economy...but none of that matters because a vastly outnumbered side COULDNT hold that much area..


60 million vs 240 million

With the 60 million trying to hold the what was it?? 97% of the land?!?!

Lol that is a joke on 1,000 levels..


Wanna show me a quote from Patton or sun tzars saying you have the advantage against 5 to 1 odds... forget about it when the numbers are in the tens of millions???

There isnt one..


I bet I can find a million quotes saying “use superior forces to overwhelm the enemy”..


Oh how about napoleons “sir I can lose 40,000 groups a month...”


Or what about .. “quantity has a quality , all its own”..


And no I am not conceding the rural areas would have better soldiers..I would bet the urban areas even have more presently serving military..

It would be really hard to swing that math... 60 million vs 240 million..


And then you have family and spouses and such.. which inherently the 260 million will draw more of..



MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!!


WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE RURAL POPULATION WANTS A 5 TO 1 FIGHT?!?!?!


What percentage of the population is willing to fight an underdog fight???

Sure everyone is down to be on the team with the best chance of winning...


What percentage of ANY population is willing to risk losing???

The urban areas know they have every advantage that matters..




edit on 1-7-2019 by JustJohnny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

If numbers were everything China would rule the world already. Your entire analysis is based on a flawed concept. You're also using total population numbers as if the entire population fights. You're just out of your league here dude. You might want to leave the analysis to people a little more knowledgeable on topics like this.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

that had alot to do with the north controling the bulk of the rail lines and manufacturing infrastructure in the usa at that time and the south was mostly agricultural based which is not the case today as it tends to be centered in 19 states

www.areadevelopment.com...


This simple approach identified 19 states that are leading the U.S. in manufacturing prosperity: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. Shared traits include a diversified manufacturing base, positive business climate, flexible incentive packages, outstanding work force development programs, and highly proactive local and state governments that support manufacturing. Below are manufacturing snapshots of each state that show how they are strengthening their industries and contributing to our national economic recovery.



www.governing.com... here is info on military active duty dont think it counts reserve ca is 1 texas is 2 for example . source breaks it down by branch for each state

www.thebalancecareers.com... this goes by bases ca is 1, florida 2, texas 3 ,4 virginia, 5 ny ,6 alabama etc

www.chicagotribune.com... this link talks about the lines may not be as clear as they were in the "north vs south" let alone a red vs blue conflict

Last March, Foreign Policy magazine asked about a half-dozen national security experts to reckon the risks of a second civil war. Their estimates ranged from 5 percent to 95 percent, with the consensus landing at slightly more than 1 in 3. (And that was six months before the president of the United States declared war on kneeling football players and the fans who support them.) But the suggestion that unnamed separatists are cooking up a 21st century sequel to Fort Sumter raises a question — or, to be precise, several questions: If Americans resolved to go to war with one another, how would we choose teams?
they then go on to say it would be more like syrian civil war then the original civil war for usa

www.vice.com... moderately interesting article from vice on the topic of it not being red v blue but rich v poor


www.vice.com... 2nd article on what happens if good old usa has a coup back from when paul ryan was still around and focuses on a coup against trump

www.nam.org... this shows u 2017s data for manufacturing for each state broken down into industry

oh and edit to add independents make up a larger voting block then republicans and dems combined so i guess 3 teams at least red blue and purple



edit on 1-7-2019 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

That's a very informative video, an area I felt was lacking was the fact that everything West of the Rockies is basically desert. A few well placed attacks on the water supply or maybe just electricity to run the pumps. Let's say they have a three day supply of water, and three days after that before they start dying of dehydration in mass. That would be more than enough to overwhelm any government capability and bring it to it's knees within two weeks.



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Jason79

that brings more problems if you unilaterally cut of water who has the easiest access to fresh water then the cities or rural? vegas is mostly blue because of clark county but the bulk of the state votes mostly red, oregon is liberal in the cities conservative in the rural areas (and upstream from most of the cities) a lot of other states are like this so if you cut off water your not just hurting one branch , even during the civil war some people from the north went south to fight for them and some people from the south went to fight for the north that is what makes civil wars so crappy . and in general denying water to civilian centers even in revolt is widely regarded as a war crime, if its the "official government" doing it that comes with extra international condemnation and well sanctions etc if each side starts doing it then we enter a gray but still pretty bad as far as international views go area
casebook.icrc.org...

Humanitarian law is also designed to protect civilian objects, including those indispensable to the survival of the civilian population. Article 29 of the Convention on the law relating to the non-navigational uses of international watercourses [available on www.un.org...], adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1997, stipulates: “International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by the principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules”. General protection under the law applicable to armed conflicts extends to more than international watercourses, and the four main prohibitions laid down in that law are worth noting: the ban on employing poison or poisonous weapons; the ban on destroying, confiscating or expropriating enemy property; the ban on destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population; the ban on attacking works or installations containing dangerous forces. The four prohibitions, to which should be added the provisions on environmental protection, are expressly mentioned in the instruments relating to international armed conflicts, and the last two are also laid down in the law applicable to non-international armed conflicts. Starvation as a method of warfare is explicitly prohibited regardless of the nature of the conflict, and the concept of objects essential for the survival of the civilian population includes drinking-water installations and supplies and irrigation works. Immunity for indispensable objects is waived only when these are used solely for the armed forces or in direct support of military action. Even then, the adversaries must refrain from any action which could reduce the population to starvation or deprive it of essential water. On the subject of works or installations containing dangerous forces, humanitarian law explicitly mentions dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating sections. Even where these are military objectives, it is forbidden to attack them when such action could release dangerous forces and consequently cause heavy losses among the civilian population. The ban also extends on the same terms to other military objectives at or in the vicinity of such facilities. Immunity from attack is waived only when one or other of the works, installations or facilities is used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if attacks are the only feasible way to terminate such support.
so probably not the best legal strategy from an international stand point and controlling international opinion on the conflict

www.almasdarnews.com... this link talks about how isis attempted to use this tactic and generally we all know how that went for them,they were a terror group posing as a government and they still got raked over the coals for it

www.theguardian.com... Un warned syria over doing exactly that now assad has held on to power (with russian backing) but pretty sure it at least lead to sanctions from at least the EU if not the wider international community

so probably not the best tactic for those who want to "look good" if they win ,its the one advantage of the partisan they either win or they die and tend to be vastly less worried about international opinion and as always the winners write the history

en.wikipedia.org...(by_main_stem) posting this one just for the photo notice where most of those rivers start and where they end up (start in Montana ND and Minnesota for the big ones at least and end at the coasts of oregon lousiana etc)

pubs.usgs.gov... here is a map of underground aquifers

en.wikipedia.org... the largest being this one

The Ogallala Aquifer (oh-guh-LAH-luh) is a shallow water table aquifer surrounded by sand, silt, clay, and gravel located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it underlies an area of approximately 174,000 sq mi (450,000 km2) in portions of eight states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas).[1] It was named in 1898 by geologist N. H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska. The aquifer is part of the High Plains Aquifer System, and rests on the Ogallala Formation, which is the principal geologic unit underlying 80% of the High Plains.[2][3]



droughtmonitor.unl.edu... here is this years drought map shows it mostly being in the southern coast,upper west coast big patch of NM and bit of the north near the great lakes

but getting back to an earlier point you think cutting off water east of the rockies as a tactic, i see nor cal("state of jefferson" and that whole shebang) could completely destroy southern and central californias access to water in either retaliation or on their own initiative to the cut off the water east of rockies plan you postulated ,as some one who grew up in ca norcal is not the bay area and the bay isnt so cal (the really dry part) and ca is basically 3-4 different states and ideologies in one state . but again war crime territory but if shasta dam had an accident it would not go well for the rest of the state especially if aquaducts were also targeted like the rockies plan of yours www.latimes.com...

water.ca.gov... this covers that 75% ish comes from North of sacramento and feeds the breadbasket that is California which is almost akin to what Alexandria was to rome in ancient times which fed a good deal of the world in its day ,so war crime+ international anger www.ocregister.com... 1/4th of it sent aroudn the world and 2/3rds of our fruits and nuts so a conflict based on water war would not go well for any one



posted on Jul, 2 2019 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

You're right, such a move would be as self defeating and universally hated as much as if the military nuke a rual state just to send a message. I was simply trying to drive home the point they are not as safe and protected as they pretend they are.

If you watch the video, it makes a convencing argument about how the war would be decided before the first shot was even fired.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join