It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
lengthy article continuesat:
A Brief Overview
Nothing defines the blatant ineptitude and rank incompetence of the radical resistance more starkly than the concept of so-called “leaderless resistance” (hereafter, LR). By its very nature LR amounts to little more than anarchy and, as demonstrated by some of the most recent examples, very rapidly degenerates into simple banditry.
Furthermore, one notes for the record that the most vociferous proponents of LR have, in common with those to whom that fantastic idea appeals, exactly zero experience in guerrilla warfare, its theory, or practice.
Simply stated, the concept of LR posits that individuals or small, close-knit groups, acting on their own initiative, performing their own targeting and relying on their own resources, can strike at the government’s infrastructure at will without fear of infiltration. Tactically, LR ranges from individual nuisance acts for the sake of causing a nuisance on one end of the spectrum to small unit terrorism for terrorism’s sake on the other.
However, nothing can be said about LR’s potential operational impact because, by definition, through rejection of any superior organizational structure, it can have no operational impact.
Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by 46ACE
I think you make some good points here...but you seem to be mixing things up a bit IMHO. Leaderless resistence is one thing, survivalism is another. The two should not be confused.
Leaderless resistence can be enormously powerful in the right context but it is ultimately a form of armed conflict. Survivalism, on the other hand, involves preparation rather than proactive strikes and it need not be violent at all. In fact I would hazard to say that the most effective survivalists are those who need never resort to violence at all.