posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:17 PM
Martial law on a federal level would take nuclear cruise missiles hitting 10-20 major cities in the U.S. at once. Other than that, martial law on
that level wouldn't happen. On a localized level though, say on a city wide level, it has been done before and most of the time has had a good
outcome to it.
The last martial law-like condition that went favorably well was the 1992 L.A. riots. They had to call in the National Guard (the Governor of Calif.
dialed them up) and a curfew was implemented in a region of Los Angeles where the majority of looting and rioting was taking place.
While many American's would not condone Martial Law, it has been used before and will be used again. With some of your scenarios, there wouldn't be
a need for martial law. As mentioned before, the SWAT units in most major metropolitan areas has the equipment of a small military force. Most have
a tank, multiple remote bomb robots, assault rifles, tear gas, tasers, clubs, and remote cameras. They also are trained frequently on assault
I'm also quite positive there are ex-special forces members in the FBI/CIA/ATF. I'm not saying these federal agents are the elite portrayed in
Hollywood, but I'm sure there are alot of tough SOB's that have extensive knowledge on counter-terrorist tactics.
So I don't see martial law being declared under terrorist actions, 9/11 wasn't, but I do see it declared for natural disasters and civil unrest.
Martial law would be localized as well in the event the latter two took place, nothing on a national level.