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.


The Pentagon Wants Authority to Post Almost 400,000 Military Personnel in U.S

page: 16
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Decoy
270 million civilian held guns in the USA, and just 400,000 troops requested to ensure safe keeping ? Gosh?, what's wrong with this picture.


Here is an interesting coincidence. Let me spill some numbers as I stumbled over this by accident.
First, we need to gather information:

Nationally, there are 217.8 million people age 18 and over in the USA.

Now some numbers to control the masses please read this from the RAND Review;

RAND Review

It turns out that the number of "world policemen" required is roughly proportional to the size of the population being protected or controlled. At the low end of the scale is the proportion of police officers required for day-to-day law enforcement duties among generally peaceful populations such as those in the United States. Peaceful populations require force ratios of somewhere between one and four police officers per thousand residents. The United States as a whole has about 2.3 sworn police officers per thousand residents. Larger cities tend to have higher ratios of police to population.

For cases drastic enough to warrant outside intervention, the required force ratio is much higher. Although numbers alone do not constitute a security strategy, successful strategies for population security and control have required force ratios either as large as or larger than 20 security personnel (troops and police combined) per thousand inhabitants. This figure is roughly 10 times the ratio required for simple policing of a tranquil population.

If the US went FULL ape crazy because of a of a total financial meltdown they would need at least 20 “security personnel” per 1,000 people being controlled. Now the reveal:

217.8 Million People require 20 per 1,000 to control which is 4.28 million “security personnel” needed.

What we have today (mind you they are all over the world)

1,473,000 Active military

1,458,500 Reserve military

97,976 Other DOD

836,737 Local officers

3,866,213 Total security force now

Wow very close and just shy at around 400,000 additional “security personnel” needed. Coincidence?

NOW, realize why TPTB are shaking in their boots. Add in this group;

The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms. (NRA)

U.S. gun owners out number the combined total of all services by a factor
of 15. When this financial failure hits rock bottom the largest, recently
robbed, armed body in the world will be unleashed with
no possible way of controlling it without bringing home the troops and adding to their numbers.

TPTB must talk their way out of this mess or keep doing ANYTHING possible to stop this failure. They will beg, borrow, and yes steal to avoid disclosure. If I were in their position I would look for a quick way to “thin the herd” and reduce the number of “security personnel” needed.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:16 AM
400,000?I hope foreign troops as id hate to see american boys sent to the slaughter house.Afterwards retaking Washington and the return of the guillitine.Why waste good ammo on bad rubbish?

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 12:45 AM
I covered a similar hypothetical scenario in the survival forums but will mention a few of the salient points here.
First between municipal, county, state and federal agencies there are a lot of LEO's.
Secondly, there are multiple layers of first responders such as fire departments and paramedic units.
Then there are the none traditional federal officers such as DOT, and immigration.
Then there are whatever national guard forces that remain within each state.
That plus 400,000 RA troops makes for a considerable cadre.
Next, you don't have to take over a city or a town or a municipality. All you need to do is control the entrance and exit points.
The average city/ town, has enough groceries and other essentials on the shelves for approx. one week.
After that you have to go to whomever controls your perimeter to get food water or medical supplies.
It's at that point that a percentage of civilians will deem it more to their advantage to work with the authorities, rather than against them.
So in addition to the forces already controlling your perimeter you can add the well intentioned neighbors within the contained areas.
200,000,000 guns in the civilian population of the US ?
OK I'll accept that estimate just for a working model, but, how many of those gun owners has ever looked down their barrel at another human being and pulled the trigger ?
Any macho man can claim to have the juavos to shoot another person but I can tell you it is easier said than done, and a hell of a lot easier done than lived with.
Lets just say for the sake of argument you have the intestinal fortitude to pick a gunfight with a trained professional shooter, do you also have the training to engage effectively and keep your focus and resolve in a fire fight?
Again easier said than done.
I wont address why some one would want to declare martial law, I'm only addressing the operational aspects.
A final note,
Martial law is an operational condition, not a situational condition. By that I mean it's a means to an end not an end in it's self.
As has been demonstrated in Iraq, taking a country is one thing, holding it is another.
You can rest assured anyone contemplating an Op like martial law in the United States, has already noted the weakness of the occupation of Iraq.
The question is, have you ?
That's phase 2.
By the way all that i have posted here is SOP. whether it's a vill or a city, the procedures are the same, it's just a matter of scale.

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by Digital_Reality

Well, on CNN, Obama just gave a news conference announcing the official activation of the Swine Flu Shot. He is urging citizens to get the shot, states it is clearly "voluntary" but "strongly" recommended.

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:15 PM
Interesting posts.
Well from what I have heard on my end, and this is coming from different sources, the US military is not in the best positions for trying to keep the peace in the country, however, there are a few things that does make one think. I believe that there may be something there, but not linked to the Swine flu that everyone is talking about. Flus come and go, and give it a year or 2 and we will have another bird flu that will hit the country again. If you were going to cause a panic, would it be with something common or something more exotic? I was on the board last night and doing a bit of reading on some of the different postings. What I came across made me sit up and go check out the links. It mentioned how there is an implimentation on vaccination centers for Smallpox, and the use of military force, as well as, civillian deputized force to keep control and peace at said centers. If you are going to cause panic, it would have to be with something that would be guarnateed to kill, that there was a vaccine for and that very few would have been innoculated against. As of the late 1980's they stopped giving innoculations for Smallpox to children, as it was believed that all strains were wiped out, with the exception of 2 labs that have such. Now if I was one of the people wanting to cause mass panic and have martial law declared, all it would take is an outbreak in a few major cities in different states to do the trick, the rush on the health services would overload the system and then people would be more cooperative for any sort of aid, if not for them but for say their families. Kind of makes you think on where things go from there.

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by Maxmars

Some may think of this as our government providing us with a source of assault weapons and combat gear.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Swine Flu: Path to Martial Law?

Could a form of martial law be imminent? Obama appears ready to cross the Rubicon, and all he needs is a killer virus.

Let’s connect some dots.

Remember President Obama’s Executive Order basing 80,000 active troops at home for the first time in the history of the peacetime military establishment to “help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack….”

Now connect that information to the recent announcement that the military has established regional deployment locations all across the United States to “assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”

Civil unrest and crowd control? Significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall? What do they know that we don’t?

This "novel" swine flu has been made into a "crisis". Why?

Global swine flu deaths topped just 1,000 this year.

But President Obama is predicting death tolls of 90,000 and possible infection of up to half the US population.

While every life matters, in statistical terms swine flu is a comparatively minor problem, which makes the hype by those in government and the military all the more suspicious.

Very Suspicious!

A recent US Army War College Report even outlined the conditions under which martial law could be introduced, listing:

…unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.

Report Here

The President has even proven willing to use healthcare reform to target the elderly, recasting human life in terms of the collective good. The White House has even urged fellow citizens to inform on opponents of Obama’s healthcare bill. In this environment, the prospect of martial law doesn’t sound that far-fetched.

But isn’t this unconstitutional? No matter. The Constitution means nothing to President Obama, who has repeatedly implied the need to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution….”

Thomas Jefferson had a different view:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism...In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

But when the President considers the Constitution to be nothing more than an archaic suggestion, no travesty is unthinkable. And the unthinkable is only a manufactured flu pandemic away. I desperately hope I am wrong in connecting these dots, but in light of the President’s stated agenda, and his known track record on ethical issues, the possibility of abuses must be considered. After all, stranger things have happened.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:08 PM
Steve Quayle and Jones discuss the angle on the 400,000 posts The Pentagon wants to have domestically.

new topics

top topics

<< 13  14  15   >>

log in