reply to post by v1rtu0s0
This is how they slowly desensitize the civilian population to accept large military vehicles driving down the street. In a few years we will
become conditioned, and finally they will arrive at our house to take us to our assigned FEMA camp sites.
I don't follow the leap of logic.
First - these training programs aren't going to be done in rush-hour traffic. Why? Because lawyers and newscasters will have orgasm-induced
a Town&Country minivan mixes it up with a Bradley Assault Vehicle with a predictable outcome. So - there's not much of an
opportunity to desensitize us.
Second - I fail to see how tanks driving through your cul-de-sac is going to desensitize anyone. If anything - it will cause the more paranoid in our
nation to go ape # and start shooting - which is only gong to fan the flames when people in said heavy armor exercise self-defense. Which would
result in a nation-wide panic because all the books and videogames of false Orwellian utopias would suddenly be vindicated.
Third - Let's say you're used to seeing tanks drive through your town. Just as you are used to seeing police cars patrol the local parks.
How does that translate into a sudden willingness to comply with an order to leave your home and join a camp?
Moreover... what is there for anyone to gain in doing such a thing (including "the powers that be" - who, being as in control as they allegedly are,
already enjoy more profit and power than could ever be attained by reigning over tent cities with virtually no industrio-economic capability)?
Especially for the soldiers... why would I follow an order to haul you in? What's in it for me? A pay check? Sorry - don't pay me enough to get
shot at by people who hunt deer regularly and aren't a problem to society. Selection of the detained women? Might work for some - but human
psychology tends to favor pair bonding and the competition for progeneracy has, essentially, formed the basis for human psychological evolution and
society. A shift from the current system by which almost every male is guaranteed a chance to have children (combined with every woman's ability to
select a mate) is going to be met with considerable resistance. Just because a soldier gets to lead a small harem in payment for compliance doesn't
necessarily mean his children will - and this logic will not escape our minds and hormones evolved to compete in such hierarchies.
Plus - a land campaign in the U.S. is suicide. Even worse ideas involve putting tanks in cities, anyway. They are bullet and explosive magnets. If
it goes boom - it will be levied against that piece of heavy armor. Sure - not an issue when it's 5.56 and 7.62 rounds - but there's simply not
enough security on supplies of anti armor weapons to preserve that advantage for long against a nation with arms proliferation of 50% current and over
If it doesn't have the overwhelming support of the population - even 'fringe' elements consisting of less than 5% of the population could
effectively stone-wall an full-scale military campaign (of almost any scale that could be assembled, practically, by any nation or combinations of
nations on the planet - to include our own).
Unless you factor in strategic weapons - nuclear/biological weapons, area effect bombing, etc - but at that point, you're not aiming to conquer a
population. You'd be aiming to exterminate it.
In which case - you wouldn't bother training soldiers to drive tanks through streets that will be melted by the intense thermal radiation of nuclear
weapons. You'd simply launch a few nuclear weapons and watch as near-autonomous MADD responses effectively dismantle most modern industrial
population centers for decades before the surviving smaller regions can effectively re-network around the damage and reconstruct destroyed