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.

 

The threat of “martial law” is a red herring

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
A topic that has made the rounds in the “patriot” community for years is the threat of martial law being imposed on the US.

Martial law is basically “The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory”. Source

Some people believe that we are just one false flag attack from having martial law enacted.

Let’s examine this threat.

Who exactly is going to enforce it?

According to this document (PDF) there are 882,201 total military personnel stationed in the US as of Sept. 30 2007. Not all of them are combat troops, most are support personnel. Not all of them will cooperate with this martial law. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that all troops will be used to enforce this “martial law”. Let’s make this a worst case scenario.

We have 3,794,101 sq miles in area for them to cover. “But they don’t patrol the desert” you say? That’s right! This is why we will use population density.

We have a population density of 80 per sq. mile.

This leaves each soldier 4.3 sq miles to cover which holds 344 people.

No matter how well you are trained, no matter how much of a bad-ass you think you are, no one in his (or her!) right mind wants to face those odds.

But not all of those 344 will fight? You are correct.

When we fought our Revolutionary War, about 3-5% of the population fought it at the beginning. I think it is safe to say that we have at least as many ready right now. Let’s use the 3% figure. That is a 10 to 1 odds. Bring in UN “peacekeepers” and you can probably up that to 15-20% that will resist, if not more.

And since our soldiers have an uncanny knack for manufacturing resistance out of thin air by torturing and murdering the civilian populations, that number will grow quickly.

Then there is the logistical nightmare of transporting, supplying and sheltering them after they deploy far away from their bases. These supplies will be a prime target for any resistance.

Folks, this cannot be done. If anyone can show me how it can be done, well, the only comments I delete are spam and posts that just have to be from pigs.

This is just one threat out of many that the disinfo scum use to keep their worshipers on edge. But it does have a good side effect. If the government is ever so stupid as to try it, we’ll be ready.

surrealworld.wordpress.com...




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
One thing I might add is that it would not just be the so-called militia/patriot types who would resist by any stretch...little old ladies and other everyday people would find a way to thwart the effort of military occupation...they would have to kill us all. You are correct, it is logistically impossible. I wish people would not fear such lunatic ideas.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I've had this conversation till I'm blue. My wife and I have war gamed this to death and a take over/ confiscation would not be in their best interest. If "THEY" only did a few sporadic "midnight knocks", this would tip off everyone else to "harden up" street corners and gated communities would be a nightmare.

I always had a "trapped" feeling about gated communities. Now I think (if organized) these could be useful. I just hope the "well off" could use it correctly.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The whole point is that the populace will be lead into believing we NEED martial law, much the same way everyone was led to believe we NEEDED the Patriot Acts.

Once they have it implanted in everyone's mind that safety is only guaranteed through such means, the amount of people that will resist is cut in quarters. The entire point of the false flag attack to instate martial law is the fact that it will undeniably once again bring people together in the belief that their safety is in jeopardy.

The few groups that do resist early such as the militias and whatnot, will simply be billed as domestic terrorists as they already air. The false flag attack will no doubt be caused by a domestic force and thus trust in all these militias will quickly fade. The troops can quickly and efficiently disband the groups and prevent any form of disobedience.

Once martial law is enacted, that is game. There will be probably no chances to meet and organize a resistance, so people would be based solely on their prior plans. Every now and then you would have a rouge force that would pose some kind of threat, but they would be swiftly taken care of and smeared to make to be the enemy.

All they need to do is create some fake "domestic terrorist" group to label people in, much like Al Quida. I could see it now.

"Good evening everybody, breaking news today as another domestic terrorist from the self proclaimed 'Sons of Liberty', the same radical group responsible for the bombings back in October, attacked law enforcement in Detroit today."



Sheep fed. Sheep happy. Sheep sleep.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
You have made an excellent point there. I followed you calculations, well done by the way, and the numbers don't add up. There would be no way to enact martial law upon the USA. There are some other factors that I will point out that could effectively make martial law possible...
1. As of 2004 there were 456,800 National Guard in the United States
2. There are a total of 1,473,900 active personnel right now all over the world
3. There are a total of 1,458,500 reserve personnel right now in the U.S.A.
4. There are 800,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S. as of 2006
My time is limited so I can not go into the math but on top of all this there are more sheeple than people in this country and these numbers along with many others I couldn't think of off the top of my head that would be willing to go along with just about anything the government said would be more that enough to enact martial law. With the help of the global depopulation I read about on here all the time, it would be more than possible that if all these people were spared then it would be easy to control the people of this country...when I have more time I will right out a more detailed version of this and post it as it's own thread...thanks for listening and feel free to add to this!

LifENcircleS



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by PSUSA
 



Ah but you are forgetting the inbalance of power in your little statistic.
It's true that one man with a gun cant controll 344 people. But make that one man with a tank, and suddenly he can.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
You forgot how much some of them apparently like raping people. (even little boys, ew!) But otherwise spot on.

When (not if) martial law is declared, UAV's would be their main tactic (if they were smart) because I believe they would be outnumbered (without a false flag, then the sheep become snitches)

It's not like a civilan is going to shoot down a Predator... Even Chris Hanson wouldn't be catching those Predators! :-p



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Great points, well made. Unfortunately you are posting them on ATS.

Most of the survivalists on this site are happier preparing for Rambo and Red Dawn than an ice-storm or a flood. Too busy taking precautions against Alex Jones' prophecies than the real problems such as redundancy.

There are a few who buck the trend but the nature of the ATS beast is that we are in the minority.

S+F



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I think this, topic is relavent to the curent unemployment in the USA..

There are record #'s of ppl inlisting!!!
344 won't last a year...

ETA...srry point of this is....could it be on purpose?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Doc Holiday]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Total military door to door take over is highly unlikely and as stated probably not tactically possible. That said, however, a certain pretty full state of control could certainly be implemented. A handful of power grids, cutting lines of communication and tightly controlling transportation and the public will certainly for all practical purposes be effectively controlled.

The mistake lies in underestimating exactly how dependent this society is on instant communication and rapid transportation. And the US military certainly has both the tech and manpower to quickly take over and control those segments....leaving any resistance reaching for cell phones and ham radios that are blocked or disabled, barring any real chance at coordinating a defense.

So while I agree with the numerical reality against any military force being able to physically 'take over' the US public I would certainly caution against thinking that would even be required for that same military force to actually assume virtual full control.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
There are several things that you are not taking into consideration:

1. Keeping 344 people in line is only difficult if 344 fight back.

2. There are many people out there that will join the military/police and assist in keeping people under control. People will view this as a "be bullied" or "become a bully" mentality. The number of troops as it stands now is really irrelevant since that will not be the number in existance when TSHTF.

Have you not read that military recruitment is the best that it's been since the 70's? Just wait -- because it is only going to continue to grow.

3. You do not need to control every square foot of the US in order to have complete control. For example, if martial law continues for any period of time, people will inevitably start panicking. Hoarding food, looting, etc., will result in many stores being closed. Once the number of places that are carrying food is reduced, the government will really only have to control them - in order to control everybody. The " Fight against us and you get no food." mentality. This will work for all of the necessities: food, water, etc.

4. The government is not going to focus, nor care about, the more rural areas that people are currently living, or will "escape to". The primary focus will be on the cities and major ports. Once these are effectively controlled, the rest will follow suit. If you can control all of the resources, you can control all of the people that need them.

5. If part of the martial law is knocking out communications, and/or restricting news and information, then the government will have a huge advantage. It's extremely difficult to organize any kind of revolt without communication. Nobody rides around on horses like they used to.


6. People are weaker today than they were 50 - 80 years ago. That's one of the downsides to technology and our modern way of life. There are a ton of people out there that would have no idea how to feed themselves if not for delivery. Sad, but true.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 




It's true that one man with a gun cant controll 344 people. But make that one man with a tank, and suddenly he can.


And how many tanks do they have? Not nearly enough to control one medium size city. And how will they be supplied and maintained? I remember reading that in a 300 mile trip, 10% will break down.
Without supply and maintenance, they are just big expensive paperweights.

@ Genus


When (not if) martial law is declared, UAV's would be their main tactic


And you know this how? And how many do they have?

This is a big country, folks. I've traveled all 48 at one time or another. If you live near a interstate, chances are I came really close to your house. I think people that haven't traveled like I have completely underestimate how big this country is.

@ Nirgal



Most of the survivalists on this site are happier preparing for Rambo and Red Dawn than an ice-storm or a flood.


If they would only learn how to drive as if they were sane, that would help
40,000+ die every year because someone did something stupid or got careless.

@ Clark Savage Jr.



That said, however, a certain pretty full state of control could certainly be implemented.


Sure they could. I expect it. They're not stupid. But implementing something and maintaining that control are two very different things. We Americans are very unpredictable. We take a lot of crap, until a tipping point is reached. Then we are merciless.

@gwydionblack



The whole point is that the populace will be lead into believing we NEED martial law, much the same way everyone was led to believe we NEEDED the Patriot Acts.


No. It was rammed down their throats. There was no time to even read that monstrosity before they demanded a vote.



"Good evening everybody, breaking news today as another domestic terrorist from the self proclaimed 'Sons of Liberty', the same radical group responsible for the bombings back in October, attacked law enforcement in Detroit today."


Would you expect them to say any different? If their approval means that much, then stay home. Personally I dont want them to like me. I love it when they call me names. It keeps me on the straight and narrow.

The mainstream press is in trouble. People are turning them off. THey don't have the power they used to have.


[edit on 17/10/09 by PSUSA]

[edit on 17/10/09 by PSUSA]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LifENcircleS
 


Good points.

I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Ah but you are forgetting the inbalance of power in your little statistic.
It's true that one man with a gun cant controll 344 people. But make that one man with a tank, and suddenly he can.


You're forgetting a statistic as well, and that's the fact that the US military has nowhere near as many tanks and armored vehicles as soldiers. It wouldn't be one tank for every 344 people, but probably one for every 8-10,000...not to mention that not all of them would be available due to use in commitments overseas. The truth is, even a tank would have a very difficult time 'controlling' even 20 people if they all decided to scatter and flee at once, especially in an urban environment. Granted, destroying or disabling the thing is another matter.

Then there's the fuel issue. Maintaining supply lines across a nation this size would be a freakin' nightmare, especially when those same citizens being oppressed are the ones who would normally be working the refineries to make the fuel and working in the fields growing the food that would be packaged for the soldiers' meals.

On a national scale, martial law just isn't possible. There are close to 30,000 cities and towns in the United States...over 250 with more than 100,000 people. The military might be able to cut off cities by setting up roadblocks, but they'd have little means of controlling whatever happened inside them.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


And of course it doesn't stop with tanks.
It pretty much depends on what kind of control you want.
If obliterating a city to discourage riots in others is an option ...

As for supply: lets see who's breaks down first? Those of the tanks guarding the raffinery, or those in the cutoff city? (250.000 people need a little more than a roof top garden)

I am fairly convinced if somebody really, really wanted it, by all means necessary, it would be possible. Now the Who, and mainly Why are the questions. No convincing arguments on that front as far as i can see.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Private military contractors (mercenaries) such as Blackwater and Dyncorp will be federalized to enforce any martial law decree. The justification for doing so will be that the military forces are deployed overseas.

This will have a dual effect of isolating any military who would revolt over martial law to foreign soil and place loyal, corporate-run forces to enforce martial law.

Hopefully this never happens. That being said, each day that passes, mercenary forces get larger and better equipped, slowly displacing government troops... The chances for mischief increase each day.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Great Thread......but you forgot the nature of the typical US citizen. They are basically affraid of confrontation. Whatever it may be....Police, Army, UN troops, their Boss.....they will not confront them. Look at the G20 marches, the police were way off course with their tactics, unconstitutional to say the least, and did anyone do anything? NO and the CNN coverage was terrible, calling the protesters "Anarchists". Forming a view for the sheeple to get, if you protest, your an Anarchist.
Also, you may want take note....for the most part we already are under martial law. I feel and see it daily. Anyone here agree?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Good point.....and let's not forget the SS troops Obama wants to form. Wonder what their Oath will be?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PSUSA
 


you make a good point, but I really do believe if people started getting shot, killed, hearded into concentration camps- it would take alot of steam out of alot of peoples sails. alot of people would fall in line, as not to have the same happen to them. As hhorrible as it sounds...Kill a family in front of the neighborhood, and the majority of said neighborhood will do what ever you tell them to keep the same fate from happening to their own family. just numbers, does not paint the whole picture. good post though, and way to think positive!


My opinion would be to be prepared for anything!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoptics
 





but you forgot the nature of the typical US citizen.


No I didn't. It's that 3-5% + out there that will get the job done. We are decidedly not typical. The majority never did anything worthwhile. They still think their votes count and that protesting will affect anything. Hasn't done them much good, has it?

But I am not so quick to write those people off. They aren't the enemy.

@AKARonco



My opinion would be to be prepared for anything!


Agreed.
I admitted they still might try it. I don't have any insider information. It would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do, but desperate people do stupid things.


[edit on 17/10/09 by PSUSA]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join