U.S. Army Urges Preparations for Troops to Occupy NYC & Other “Megacities”

a reply to: KawRider9

No police force, no invading Country, not even our own military can contain "we the people"...

I think we saw what we the people act like in Boston when troops came into that city and our homes!Grannies being dragged out of their homes by our own soldiers and searched...because they was looking for a boy! One Boy! People said I am glad, they are keeping us safe..haha!

a reply to: kx12x

That's it, they are calling it civil unrest, and many other labels and not martial law, but no matter what they call it, it is still totally illegal to do.

Some in this thread, really should review.

They may get to experience it first hand, one fine day.

A friend of ours has a close friend who is a FBI agent. He told me this guy has an arsenal in his home, and an elaborate security system, and claims he is preparing for what he is claims will happen- a sort of civil war, or uprising, largely racial.
That a large part of the population will die.

He does not explain the details of how he came to the conclusion but claims that "they" know for sure it is coming, and are preparing for it.

This was described to me about a year ago.

I don't know what I think about that, and it is one of those "friend of a friend" anecdotes, which isn't worth much. But subjects like this always make that memory come to mind for me.

a reply to: AnteBellum

I know neither me or my brothers would never under any circumstance police our people that is not the oath we took. When standing in that room swearing in you know why you are truly there.

What I find chilling about this is the term "other GLOBAL megacities". Global? Really?

Are they talking about invasion of sovereign states to maintain the lapdogs and puppets they have in place as well, in foreign states? Sounds like they could be rather busy and stretched a bit thin if that is their goal.

a reply to: Bluesma

I have been wondering about that, how the feds "know" something is coming.. I would bet it has something to do with remote viewing. The military takes that seriously to this day, and the tech has been perfected according to many pros in the field, a few of those have their own institutes and sell services to businesses. But the military takes it much, much further.
A possibility at least..

a reply to: Fylgje

I think most will be underground, literally.

sounds it may be time to get out of the cities....civil unrest will not be at all pretty

Nice find there, O.P. I believe that the prevailing theory is that the military was testing this kind of program in Boston. But check this out.

Reasons given for why U.S. troops may be sent into major cities to deal with social dislocation include “unrest,” “income disparity,” “natural disasters,” and “illicit networks” who challenge state power.

That is no good. We are reaching a heavy amount of income disparity after the economic crisis of 2008, even among college graduates like myself, who lives on less than $1000 a month (even with multiple degrees).

a reply to: AnteBellum

Not to seem overly dismissive, but having been in the Army and seen many proposals and ideas about doing things with the military, just because there is a paper on a subject does not mean that the military is going to be invading New York any time soon. As noted on page two in the introduction from Gen. Odierno:

Not knowing the details of the future is no excuse for not studying the problems and opportunities any future may hold.

What this entire paper is addressing is a growing trend (megacities) that will continue to increase in number and for which the current military strategies are not appropriately suited. It's a study concerned with an existing reality that has yet to be encountered by the military, but for which the military should be prepared. This is what military leaders do--they study possible scenarios and prepare, otherwise when that scenario happens, they will be ill-equiped to effectively deal with the situation at hand.

This is exactly what's wrong with the current commander-in-chief, and I can't help but think that my noted quote from the introduction to this paper was a direct assault on the president and his lack of planning.

ETA: It would seem as though most did not actually read or skim through the PDF; "income disparity" is not discussed as a reason to invade a city, but as a known ingredient that causes instability in such a populated area.

SEPARATION AND GENTRIFICATION: Radical income disparity, and racial, ethnic and sub cultural separation are major drivers of instability in megacities. As these divisions become more pronounced they create delicate tensions, which if allowed to fester, may build over time, mobilize segments of the population, and erupt as triggers of instability.

Now, I understand that it says, "...which if allowed to fester..." in there, but that does not mean in the least that it is implying that the U.S. Army should travel all around the world to megacities and write their economic policy for each city/nation in order to fix this problem, nor does it imply that the military is going to set up security points in these areas in order to monitor and quell any instability caused by it. It simply says that it is a known cause, and the longer it festers, the higher the chance of instability in that area--the resultant conflict possibly meaning that the military may be asked to intervene.

As a 14 year Veteran, and senior NCO, I can tell you without a doubt that everyone I have spoken with, has said the same thing as me. NO WAY WILL I ATTACK OR GO INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES TO TAKE THEIR WEAPONS. a reply to: Char-Lee

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: AnteBellum
I know neither me or my brothers would never under any circumstance police our people that is not the oath we took. When standing in that room swearing in you know why you are truly there.

Don't worry--most people didn't even read the PDF. All it does is discuss what megacities are, what the challenges would be, the known or suspected causes that lead to instability and problems, and then discuss questions that need answered (along with a few studies of certain cities, including New York, which was determined to be quite stable).

This is not a call to arms of the Army to invade New York or Los Angeles, it's just a case study of an area (combat in a megacity) that the Army catagorizes itself as unprepared to deal with.

a reply to: darkbake

You missed the entire context of the PDF--all you apparently did was search for words that caught your attention and assume that they were used in the context of being "[r]easons given for why U.S. troops may be sent into major cities..."

You need to re-read the PDF (or actually read it for the first time) and understand what this is actually saying. This is a STUDY on an area that the military is currently ignorant on concerning how to effectively function (potential combat in a megacity). The things you listed were given as reasons that instability in megacities occurs, not as reasons for military intervention. It wasn't even vague on that at all.

ETA: I'm not trying to pick on you alone, but yours was the last comment I read concerning the misinterpretation of this paper, so I quoted you. But you're not alone in your inappropriate assumptions from this PDF, so please don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just calling out an incorrect interpretation.

a reply to: SlapMonkey


People do not know how to read, apparently.

I read this entire PDF and there is nothing in there about a plan to occupy New York, or any other American city.

The PDF illustrates a need to understand the extremely complex environment of mega cities. That in the future more and more of these huge population centers will be created. That planning and training is required for dealing with such huge potential combat zones.

Nothing in that PDF states what the OP says it does.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: kx12x

That's it, they are calling it civil unrest, and many other labels and not martial law, but no matter what they call it, it is still totally illegal to do.

This is a fact.

What did we all expect? No one on this forum can place the blame on any one else excepts for themselves. That includes me, by the way.

We allowed this to happen. Years ago after 9/11, the Patriot act passed with out one hiccup. People then said, 'jee i wonder how this is going to affect our civil liberties,'... This is how. Over the last decade the DoD and our pals at DHS have been giving militiary equipment to civilian police departments, FOR FREE. Yes, all the MRAPS, and armored urban vehicles, all the surplus bayonettes and body armor, unused flashbangs, an even CS gas has been handed over to 'Peace Officers'. What we witnessed in Ferguson was just a taste. Imagin the scale of a deployment of force in a city the size of New York, or Los Angeles...

Those in power would do anything they can to hold onto that power. Politicians are the worst example of this. If they had any interest in 'National Security' or the threat of terror from a foreign operator, there would be zero need to write in little things like 'civil unrest' or 'social dislocation'. These terms are meant specifically for political disidence. IE If they don't like you because of your opinions on politics, GMO foods, liberty, or a pleathora of other hot ticket items... they have the right to arrest you, and detain you in a jail system of their determination.

None of that even touches on the potential for Agenda 21 implications. Pay close attention to the Implimentation at local and national levels...

Oh yeah, theres also REX 84.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Hello and thank you for posting,
It is good to hear your thoughts on this subject, are you still enlisted?
If you are I have a couple of questions(this includes anyone in the armed forces or national guard), you don't have to answer if you for any reason feel uncomfortable, just ignore me or pm me.

If it was so ordered for you(standing army) to go into NYC and take control of a certain area, lets just say lower Manhattan. If civilians were pelting you with rocks, bottles, molotov's alongside other civilians that were peacefully protesting and there was no way in differentiating the two, what would you(standing army) do to resolve the situation?
If you broke protocol or refused to carry out orders what would your superiors be able to do to you?

I ask this because many times naturally good people trying to do good things get put into situations that cause them to 'look' bad under certain circumstances. Many in WW2 Germany used this as an excuse to justify their actions or atrocities. It's a problem I see all the time with the police and in it self causes even more potential for unrest. If the army, given the chief of staff report, is doing this for our own protection they must have a way with dealing with these 'grey' matters as to not cause collateral damage to innocent people or property. Is there such training that you are aware of for this type of event?

Didn't quite a few of one of your alphabet agencies take up camp just last week in our UK airports to hunt out tewowists?

Not quite an invasion by your troops, but it depends how you interpret the PDF.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: Char-Lee

If you think the military (or who ever) can take over every "megacity" in the United States, you are extremely foolish or have no understanding on how real life works.

And don't anyone start with the, "government has tanks, jet fighters, drones, nukes" BS. That's pure hyperbole BS.

The only thing we need to worry about is tomorrow. (cue scary music)...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

ETA: It would seem as though most did not actually read or skim through the PDF; "income disparity" is not discussed as a reason to invade a city, but as a known ingredient that causes instability in such a populated area.

SEPARATION AND GENTRIFICATION: Radical income disparity, and racial, ethnic and sub cultural
separation are major drivers of instability in megaci-ties. As these divisions become more pronounced they create delicate tensions, which if allowed to fester, may build over time, mobilize segments of the popula-tion, and erupt as triggers of instability.

The paper is not about how to invade a mega-city.
It's about due diligence.

You are entitled to your interpretation of the pdf also it is not a crime, YET!

Given recent Army training manuals which detail preparations for “full scale riots” within the United States during which troops may be forced to engage in a “lethal response” to deal with crowds of demonstrators, the fact that U.S. troops are being prepared to occupy major cities in the near future is extremely concerning.